Untitled

HYDROBIOCENOSES OF THE TRANSBOUNDARY SECTIONS OF THE UKRAINIAN AND ROMANIAN PARTS OF THE DANUBE DELTA ГІДРОБІОЦЕНОЗИ ТРАНСКОРДОННИХ ДІЛЯНОК УКРАЇНСЬКОЇ ТА РУМУНСЬКОЇ ДЕЛЬТИ ДУНАЮ HIDROBIOCENOZELE SECTOARELOR TRANSFRONTALIERE ALE DELTEI UCRAINENE ȘI ROMÂNEȘTI ALE DUNĂRII

УДК 574.58(282.243.7.05)((477+498)-192)(02)=111 Г46 Рекомендовано до друку Вченою радою Інституту гідробіології НАН України (Протокол №15 від 21.12.2018) Рецензенти: Гродзинський М. Д., чл.-кор. НАН України, академік Академії наук вищої освіти України, д. г. н., професор географічного факультету Київського національного університету імені Тараса Шевченка; Юришинець В. І., д. б. н., ст. н. с., заступник директора Інституту гідробіології НАН України. Г46

За наук. редакцією чл.-кор. НАН України, д. б. н., проф. С. А. Афанасьєва Hydrobiocenoses of the transboundary sections of the Ukrainian and Romanian parts of the Danube delta: Гідробіоценози транскордонних ділянок української та румунської дельти Дунаю: монографія / А. В. Ляшенко, С. О. Афанасьєв, К. Санду, К. Є. Зоріна-Сахарова, О. В. Мантурова, Л. В. Гулейкова, Т. М. Дьяченко, О. Л. Са вицький, В. В. Маковський, І. І. Абрам’юк, А. Думітраче, Д. Іоніка; за заг. ред. к. б. н., ст. н. с. А. В. Ляшенка. – K.: Kaфедра, 2018. – 312 с. ISBN 978-617-7301-59-1

The book summarizes the results of three comprehensive international projects, which were implemented in the Ukrainian and Romanian parts of the Lower Danube for the years 2006 to 2018, and is supported by the target scientific research program of General Biology Department of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine “Fundamental principles of forecasting and prevention of the negative impact of the climatic changes on the biotic systems of Ukraine”. According to the field surveys at 45 monitoring sites, the abiotic and biotic characteristics of water objects of different types are presented, the comparative characteristics of hydrologic-hydrochemical and structural-functional variables are performed, certain regularities of biodiversity formation and water coenoses functioning are described, the bioproductive potential and quality of the Delta waters are estimated, the main groups and species of hydrobionts, compiled separately according to specific types of surface waters and different observation sites, are listed. On the basis of retrospective materials analysis, the reference metrics for the ecological status assessment are given and the proposals for implementation of international hydroecological monitoring are elaborated. For a wide range of scientists, hydrobiologists, ecologists, specialists in water management. У роботі представлено узагальнення результатів трьох комплексних міжнародних проектів, проведених в українській та румунській частинах пониззя Дунаю в період з 2006 по 2018 роки, яке виконано за підтримки цільової програми наукових досліджень Відділення загальної біології НАН України «Фундаментальні засади прогнозування та упередження негативного впливу змін кліматичних умов на біотичні системи України». За матеріалами експедиційних обстежень на 45 станціях спостережень наведено абіотичні та біотичні характеристики водних об’єктів різного типу, виконано порівняльні характеристики гідролого-гідрохімічних та структурно-функціональних показників, відзначено певні закономірності формування біорізноманіття, функціонування водних ценозів, проведено оцінки біопродукційного потенціалу і якості вод дельти, наведено переліки видів основних груп гідробіонтів, складених окремо за конкретними типами масивів поверхневих вод та по різним станціям спостережень. На основі аналізу отриманих ретроспективних матеріалів наведено значення референсних показників для оцінки екологічного стану та розроблено пропозиції проведення міжнародного гідроекологічного моніторингу. Для широкого кола науковців, гідробіологів, екологів, фахівців водного менеджменту. УДК 574.58(282.243.7.05)((477+498)-192)(02)=111

ISBN 978-617-7301-59-1

© Ляшенко А. В.1, Афанасьєв С. О.1, Санду К.2, Зоріна-Сахарова К. Є.1, Мантурова О. В.1, Гулейкова Л. В.1, Дьяченко Т. М.1, Савицький О. Л.1, Маковський В. В.1, Абрам’юк І. І.1, Думітраче А.2, Іоніка Д., 2018; 1 © Інститут гідробіології НАН України, 2018; 2 © Інститут біології, м. Бухарест, Румунська Академія, 2018.

PREFACE This book is a result of the prolong integral international investigations in the Ukrainian and Romanian sections of the lower Danube reaches, from the Prut River mouth to the Izmayil Cheatal – point of the river bifurcation to the Tulcea and Kiliya arms, and downstream – in the water bodies at both sides of the border Kiliya arm. The book comprises results of three international projects: «ECAQUDAN – Assessing the impact of environmental change on aquatic ecosystems in the Danube delta»; Joint ecological monitoring, assessment and information exchange with the aim of integrated Danube delta region management, within which the Joint Danube Delta Survey (JDDS) was carried out; and WWF Project «Assessment of the Ermakov and Small Tataru islands rehabilitation». The book also includes results of the scientific work «Climate-induced restructuring of the hydrobionts’ communities and their impact on ecological state and biological productivity of the transboundary with EC rivers of Ukraine», which was realized according to the special-task program of the General Biology department of the NAS of Ukraine «Fundamental principles of forecasting and prevention of the negative impact of the climatic changes on the biotic systems of Ukraine for the years 2018–2019», which enabled to obtain additional material and results of all mentioned projects were comprehended. On the whole investigations covered more than ten-year period, the first stage started in 2006–2007 by six joint integral seasonal field surveys of the water bodies and water courses of the Kiliya arm of the Danube delta. Their peculiarity consisted in the surveys’ continuity, which started at one side of the border (in the Romanian section) and ended at the other side (in the Ukrainian section). The works were supported by the Swiss national scien tific fund SCOPES, which was aimed at initiation and support of scientific cooperation between Switzerland and East-European countries within the Swiss-Romanian-Ukrainian project ECAQUDAN. These studies were additionally supported by the bilateral interacademic Agreement on scientific and technical cooperation between NAS of Ukraine and Romanian academy. Among the most essential tasks was adjustment of the common approaches 3

to sampling, analysis and presentation of the results, intercalibration and harmonization of the methods and methodologies, presentation of common results, which were trustworthy in the water-management authorities in both countries and in the European community. The second stage – realization of the International project «Joint ecological monitoring, assessment and information exchange with the aim of integrated Danube delta region management» (2010–2012), which was initiated by ENVSEC (Environment and Security Initiative) and realized by the Centre for Regional Studies (Odesa) with ICPDR (International commission for protection of the Danube River) support. Within the frames of this project in 2011 scientists from Ukraine, Romania and Moldova carried out joint Danube delta survey (JDDS), which was the first practical step to harmonization of the monitoring system of three countries. In hydrobiological investigations participated scientists from the institutions of Ukraine (The Danube biosphere reserve, Vylkove; Institute of marine biology, Odesa; Institute of hydrobiology, Kyiv), Moldova (Center of State hydrometeorological service, Chisinau) and Romania (The Danube Delta National Institute for Research and Development, Tulcea). The main task of the survey consisted in intercalibration of the environmental monitoring methods in the lower Danube section over the joint hydrobiological sampling, assessment and exchange of information on hydroecosystems’ state in the region. Hydrobiological material in the Ukrainian section of the Danube delta was taken from the board of the research vessel “Cyclone” and high-speed motor boat (Danube hydrometeorological observatory, Izmayil) and in the Romanian side – from the board of the research “ROUA” (Danube delta biosphere reserve, Tulcea). In the transboundary section sampling was carried out simultaneously at Ukrainian and Romanian or Moldavian side, Scientists of the Institute of hydrobiology performed the «benthos» block of hydrobiological studies (macrozoobenthos, phytobenthos, higher aquatic plants), which results are considered in this book. The third stage was associated with realization of the National Academy of sciences of Ukraine Project «Fundamental basis for forecasting and prevention of the negative impact of the climate changes on biotic systems of Ukraine» and WWF Project «Evaluation of the Ermakov and Small Tataru is4

lands rehabilitation», realized in 2018 with WWF-NL financial support. Ecosystems of these islands, located in the Kiliya arm in the Ukrainian section of the delta, in the 1990ies were subjected to the destructive anthropogenic impact owing to almost total aging by dams and further drying. The wetlands with significant biological diversity, spawning areas of many commercial, rare and endangered fishes, birds’ nesting were transformed into homo genous reed areas, which were unsuccessfully used for the pulp-and-paper production, salted lands, not usable for agriculture, and into pastures for the cattle and horses. Ecosystem of the Ermakov island was even more damaged owing to earth deposition after the Kiliya arm dredging. So, in 2003 in the Small Tataru island and in 2009 in the Ermakov island activities started aimed at rehabilitation of the natural ecosystems and regimes of their functioning, supported by WWF. In 2018 WWF posed task of evaluation of the actual state of hydrobiocenoses of the considered islands, degree of their «naturality», ecosystems’ rehabilitation, similarity of the islands’ biological diversity with parameters of other analogous water bodies of the delta. Under the aegis of WWF in May 2018 specialists of the Institute of hydrobiology carried out hydrobiological survey of the actual state of hydrobiocenoses of the internal water bodies (lakes and channels) of the islands. Structural and functional parameters of macroinvertebrates (zoobenthos and phytophilous fauna) and ichthyofauna (larvae and early juveniles) were determined with the aim to evaluate degree of the ecosystems’ rehabilitation after the dams’ destruction and restoration of hydrological connections with the river channel. This book presents relatively small portion of all investigations, carried out by the Institute of hydrobiology in the Danube River over the last decades. But these materials are characterized by integrity and work in the transboundary sections of the lower Danube and delta as a part of international scientific teams, common approaches to solution of the urgent issues. Actually, the climatic changes become one of the most essential among numerous ecological problems of the Danube River. At the background of anthropogenic pollution and intensive water-management activity, climate changes cause modifications of the hydrological regime, chemical composition and properties. At this in hydrobiocenoses occur structural modi fications, caused first of all by changes of biota’s taxonomic composition and 5

abundance. In this view, profound investigations are needed of all complex of the factors, their impact on structural and functional modifications of the aquatic communities and biocenoses. Knowledge of mechanisms of the ecosystems’ functioning and the hydrobionts’ adaptations are very important, because gives possibilities for advances development of the main provisions of the theory of the aquatic ecosystems functioning, and thus for the effective forecast of their development under the impact of biotic and abiotic factors, elaboration and implementation of practical environment-protective measures and optimization of the biological resources management for the social needs. From the water management viewpoint the main task is development, adjustment and further implementation into the practice of hydroecological monitoring in Ukraine of methodology of the aquatic ecosystems’ ecological state (potential) assessment, based on the WFD principles and national approaches, along with adjustment of the descriptors’ reference values with account of degree of the climate-induced and human-induced, etc. disturbances, and development of measures for rehabilitation and protection of the natural biological diversity, nature-management optimization and sustain use of the bioproductive potential of the river ecosystems. Nowadays, when Ukraine pursues a course towards European integration, joint development with the EU member states, mutual understanding with scientists and officials of the neighboring countries became of essential importance. For the many years, negotiations are carried out regarding organization of the joint international monitoring of the transboundary river sections. The main problem of its realization was and still is implementation of the WFD 2000/60/EC provisions in Ukraine. Taking into account, that according to the European strategy, given in this document, the ecological state is determined with priority of biological quality elements, and hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical elements as supporting biological, we expect that our work on investigation of hydrobiocenoses of the transboundary sections of the Ukrainian and Romanian Danube delta will be a certain step towards knowing of the fundamental nature’s laws and towards achievement of the Ukraine’ strategic goal – entry to the European community. 6

ПЕРЕДМОВА Ця монографія – результат багаторічних комплексних міжнародних досліджень в українській та румунській частинах пониззя Дунаю на ділянці від впадіння р. Прут до Ізмаїльського Чаталу, вершини дельти, місця біфуркації на Тульчинський та Кілійський рукави і далі у водних об’єктах по обидва боки транскордонного Кілійського рукава. До рукопису увійшли матеріали трьох міжнародних проектів: ECAQUDAN – Assessing the impact of environmental change on aquatic ecosystems in the Danube delta (Оцінка впливу змін довкілля на гідроекосистеми дельти Дунаю), «Спільний екологічний моніторинг, оцінка та обмін інформації з метою інтегрованого управління регіоном дельти Дунаю», в рамках якого було проведено The Joint Danube Delta Survey (JDDS) (Спільне обстеження дельти Дунаю) та WWF «Оцінка відновлення островів Єрмаков та Малий Татару». А також наукової роботи «Кліматогенні перебудови угруповань гідробіонтів та їхній вплив на екологічний стан та біопродуктивність транскордонних з ЄС річок України», яку проводили за цільовою програмою наукових досліджень Відділення загальної біології НАН України «Фундаментальні засади прогнозування та попередження негативного впливу змін кліматичних умов на біотичні системи України» на 2018–2019 рр. і в рамках якої отримано додаткові матеріали та проведено узагальнення результатів усіх зазначених тем. Загалом дослідженнями охоплено понад десятирічний період – перший етап розпочато у 2006–2007 роках шістьма спільними комплексними україно-румунськими посезонними експедиціями, проведеними на водоймах та водотоках дельти Кілійського рукава. Їхньою особливістю була неперервність обстежень, що розпочиналися з одного боку кордону (на території румунської дельти), а закінчувалися з іншої сторони (в українських акваторіях). Роботи було виконано за фінансування програми Швейцарського національного наукового фонду SCOPES, метою якої була ініціація та підтримка наукового співробітництва між Швейцарією та країнами Східної Європи в рамках 7

швейцарсько-українсько-румунського проекту ECAQUDAN. Додатковою підтримкою стала двостороння міжакадемічна Угода про науково-технічну співпрацю НАН України та Румунської Академії. Одними з найважливіших серед багатьох поставлених виконавцями завдань були напрацювання спільних підходів щодо відбору, аналізу та представлення матеріалів, інтеркалібрація та гармонізація методів та методик досліджень, надання спільних результатів, що мають довіру в установах водного менеджменту по обидва боки кордону та в європейському співтоваристві. Другий етап – участь у виконанні міжнародного проекту «Спільний екологічний моніторинг, оцінка та обмін інформації з метою інтегрованого управління регіоном дельти Дунаю» (2010–2012), який було ініційовано ENVSEC (Environment and Security Initiative) і реалізовано Центром регіональних досліджень (м. Одеса) за підтримки ICPDR (Міжнародної комісії із захисту р. Дунай). В рамках виконання цього проекту восени 2011 р. науковцями України, Румунії та Молдови було проведено спільне дослідження дельти р. Дунай (JDDS), яке стало першим практичним кроком у гармонізації системи моніторингу цих трьох країн. До виконання гідробіологічних досліджень були залучені науковці науково-дослідних установ України (Дунайський біосферний заповідник (м. Вилкове), Інститут морської біології (м. Одеса) та Інститут гідробіології (м. Київ)), Молдови (Центру державної гідрометеорологічної служби Республіки Молдова (м. Кишинів) та Румунії (Націо нального інституту досліджень та розвитку дельти Дунаю (м. Тульча)). Головним завданням експедиції стала інтеркалібрація методів моніторингу довкілля в пониззі р. Дунай під час спільного відбору гідробіологічного матеріалу, оцінки та обміну інформацією про стан гідроекосистем у регіоні. Відбір гідробіологічного матеріалу в акваторіях української частини дельти Дунаю здійснювався з використанням науково-дослідного судна «Циклон» та швидкісного моторного катеру (Дунайська гідрометобсерваторія м. Ізмаїл, Україна), а в акваторіях румунської частини дельти – з борту науково-дослідного судна «ROUA» (Управління біосферного заповідника дельти Дунаю, м. Тульча, Румунія). На суміжних (транскордонних) ділянках відбір проб здійсню8

вався водночас із румунської та української або молдовської сторони. Науковці Інституту гідробіології виконували «бентосний» блок гідробіологічних досліджень (макрозообентос, фітобентос та вищі водяні рослини), результати якого і включено в цю монографію. Третій етап пов’язано з виконанням теми НАН України «Фундаментальні засади прогнозування та упередження негативного впливу змін кліматичних умов на біотичні системи України» проектом WWF «Оцінка відновлення островів Єрмаков та Малий Татару», що виконувався у 2018 році за фінансуванням WWF-NL. Екосистеми цих островів, розташованих у Кілійському рукаві в українській частині дельти, в 90-х роках ХХ століття зазнали нищівного антропогенного впливу внаслідок майже повного віддамбування по периметру та подальшого осушення. Водно-болотні угіддя з великим біологічним різноманіттям, місцями нересту цінних і рідкісних видів риб, гніздування та розвитку птахів перетворилися на доволі одноманітні очеретяні зарості, що безуспішно намагалися використовувати для целюлозно-паперового виробництва, на засолені землі, малопридатні для вирощування сільсько господарських культур, та на пасовища для коней і великої рогатої худоби. Додаткової руйнації екосистема о. Єрмаков зазнала від відвалів ґрунтів, що складалися у верхів’ї острова після днопоглиблюваних робіт у Кілійському рукаві. Тому у 2003 році на острові Малий Татару та 2009 на острові Єрмаков за підтримки WWF були розпочаті роботи щодо відновлення природніх екосистем та режимів їхнього функціонування. Цього 2018 року WWF в Україні поставило завдання оцінки сучасного стану гідробіоценозів островів, ступеня їхньої “природності”, відновлення екосистем, схожості різноманіття з показниками інших аналогічних водних об’єктів дельти. Науковцями Інституту гідро біології з 20 по 25 травня 2018 року під егідою київського відділення WWF проведено гідробіологічне обстеження островів Малий Татару та Єрмаков української частини дельти Дунаю. Головним завданням дослідження була оцінка сучасного стану гідробіоценозів внутрішніх водойм островів (озер та протоків) за структурно-функціональними характеристиками макробезхребетних (зообентосу та фітофільної фауни) та іхтіофауни (мальків та ранньої молоді риб) для визначення 9

наявності та ступеня відновлення їхніх екосистем після роздамбування та поновлення гідрологічного зв’язку з Дунаєм. Матеріали, наведені в монографії, становлять порівняно невелику частку в загальних дослідженнях Інституту гідробіології НАН України на Дунаї, проведених в останні десятиліття. У першу чергу їх об’єднує комплексність та робота на транскордонних ділянках пониззя та дельти ріки у складі міжнародних наукових колективів, спільне ставлення до вирішення нагальних питань. У нинішніх умовах серед численних екологічних проблем Дунаю надзвичайної ваги набуває проблема змін клімату. На тлі антропогенного забруднення та активної водогосподарської діяльності зміни клімату зумовлюють зміни водного режиму, хімічного складу і властивостей води. При цьому у гідробіоценозах відбуваються модифікації структури, викликані насамперед змінами кількісної представленості та таксономічного складу біоти. З огляду на це необхідні глибокі дослідження всього комплексу чинників та їхнього впливу на структурно-функціональні перебудови водних угруповань та біоценозів. Пізнання механізмів функціонування водних екосистем та адаптацій гідробіонтів має важливе наукове значення, оскільки відкриває можливості для поглибленої розробки основних положень теорії функціонування водних екосистем, а відтак і для ефективного прогнозування їхнього розвитку в умовах дії біотичних і абіотичних чинників, розробки і впровадження практичних природоохоронних заходів і оптимізації використання водних біологічних ресурсів для потреб суспільства. Із позицій водного менеджменту на перший план виступає завдання створення, апробації та подальшого впровадження в практику гідроекологічного моніторингу в Україні методології оцінки екологічного стану (потенціалу) гідроекосистем, що базується на принципах ВРД і національних підходах із коригуванням референційних значень дескрипторів на величини порушень внаслідок кліматичних змін, антропогенного впливу тощо, а також у розробці заходів відновлення та збереження природного біорізноманіття, оптимізації природокористування та сталого використання біопродукційного потенціалу річкових екосистем. 10

На сьогодні, коли Україна впевнено взяла курс на європейську інтеграцію, спільний розвиток з країнами ЄС, надзвичайно важливим стало питання взаєморозуміння з науковцями та державцями сусідніх країн. Багато років ідуть перемовини про організацію об’єднаного міжнародного моніторингу транскордонних ділянок річок. Основною проблемою його запровадження була й залишається імплементація в Україні положень Директиви 2000/60/ЄС. Відповідно до Європейської стратегії, викладеної у цьому документі, визначення екологічного стану водних об’єктів проводиться за пріоритетністю показників структури біотичної складової та гідроморфологічними, хімічними та фізико-хімічними складовими як допоміжними, які підтримують біологічну складову. Сподіваємося, що наша робота, присвячена вивченню гідробіоценозів транскордонних ділянок української та румунської дельти Дунаю, буде певним кроком вперед як по дорозі пізнання фундаментальних законів природи, так і на шляху досягнення стратегічної мети України – входження в Європейське співтовариство.

11

(

PREFATA , Această monografie este rezultatul studiilor de mai mulţi ani de cercetare internațională cuprinzătoare în părțile ucrainene și românești din vaia inferioară a Dunării de pe sectorul fluviului de la vărsarea râului Prut până la Ceatal Izmail, culmea deltei, bifurcația râului în brațele Tulcea și Chilia și mai departe în obiectele acvatice de pe ambele părți ale brațului transfrontalier Chilia. Manuscrisul include materialele din trei proiecte internaționale: ECAQUDAN – Assessing the impact of environmental change on aquatic ecosystems in the Danube delta (Evaluarea impactului schimbărilor de mediu asupra ecosistemelor acvatice din Delta Dunării), ”Monitorizarea comună a mediului, evaluarea și schimbul de informații în scopul gestionării integrate a regiunii Deltei Dunării”, în cadrul căreia s-au desfășurat The Joint Danube Delta Survey (JDDS) (Studiul comun al Deltei Dunării) și WWF ”Evaluarea restabilirii insulelor Ermakov și Tataru Mic”. Precum și din lucrarea științifică „Transformările climatogene ale grupurilor de hidrobionți și influența lor asupra stării ecologice și bioproductivității râurilor din Ucraina transfrontaliere cu UE” realizată conform programului de cercetare țintă al Departamentului de Biologie Generală al Academiei Naționale de Științe din Ucraina „Principii fundamentale de prognoză și prevenire a impactului negativ al schimbărilor climatice asupra sistemelor biotice din Ucraina” pentru perioada anilor 2018–2019 și în cadrul căreia au fost obținute materiale suplimentare și sa realizat o generalizare a rezultatelor tuturor subiectelor indicate. În general, cercetarea a acoperit o perioadă mai mult de zece ani, prima fază s-a început în anii 2006-2007 în cadrul unor șase expediții complexe sezoniere comune ucrainene-române, efectuate în bazinele de apă și fluxurile din delta brațului Chilia. Acestea se caracterizează printr-un studiu continuu, care s-a început dintr-o parte a frontierei (pe teritoriul deltei române) și s-a încheiat pe de altă parte (în apele ucrainene). Lucrările au fost realizate în temeiul programului finanțat de Swiss National Science Foundation SCOPES al cărui scop a fost inițierea și susținerea cooperării științifice dintre Elveția și țările din Europa de Est în cadrul proiectului elvețian-ucrainean-român 12

ECAQUDAN. Un sprijin suplimentar a fost Acordul interuniversitar bilateral privind cooperarea științifică și tehnică între Academia Națională de Științe a Ucrainei și Academia Română. Una dintre cele mai importante sarcini ale executanților a fost dezvoltarea unor abordări comune pentru selectarea, analiza și prezentarea materialelor, intercalibrarea și armonizarea metodelor și tehnicilor de cercetare, prezentarea rezultatelor comune de încredere către instituțiile de management al apei de pe ambele părți ale frontierei și în comunitatea europeană. A doua fază – participarea la proiectul internațional ”Monitorizarea comună a mediului, evaluarea și schimbul de informații cu scopul gestionării integrate a regiunii Delta Dunării” (2010–2012), care a fost inițiat de ENVSEC (Environment and Security Initiative) și implementat de Centrul de Studii Regionale (orașul Odessa) cu sprijinul ICPDR (Comisia Internaţională pentru Protecţia Fluviului Dunărea). În cadrul acestui proiect, în toamna anului 2011 savanții din Ucraina, România și Moldova au realizat un studiu comun de cercetare a Deltei fluviului Dunărea (JDDS), care a fost primul pas practic în armonizarea sistemului de monitorizare a acestor trei țări. Pentru efectuarea studiilor hidrobiologice au fost implicați savanți din cadrul instituțiilor de cercetări științifice din Ucraina (Rezervația Biosferei Dunării (or. Vilcovo), Institutul de Biologie Marină (or. Odessa) și Institutul de Hidrobiologie (or. Kiev)), Republica Moldova (Centrul Serviciului Hidrometeorologic de Stat din Republica Moldova (mun. Chișinău) și România (Institutul Național de cercetare-dezvoltare Delta Dunării (mun. Tulcea)). Obiectivul principal al expediției a fost intercalibrarea metodelor de monitorizare a mediului în cursul inferior al Dunării în timpul prelevării comune a materialului hidrobiologic, evaluarea și schimbul de informații cu privire la starea sistemelor hidroecologice din regiune. Prelevarea materialului hidrobiologic în acvatoriul ucrainean al Deltei Dunării a fost realizată cu ajutorul navei de cercetare ”Ciclon” și barca cu motor de mare viteză (Observatorul hidrometeorologic Dunărean din or. Izmail, Ucraina.), precum și în acvatoriul român al Deltei – de la bordul navei de cercetare „ROUA“ ( Direcția Rezervației Biosferei din Delta Dunării, mun. Tulcea, România). În zonele adiacente (transfrontaliere), prelevarea de probe a fost efectuată simultan din partea română și ucraineană sau moldovenească. Savanții de la Institutul 13

de Hidrobiologie au efectuat blocul ”bentonic” de cercetare hidrobiologică (macrozoobentos, fitobentos și plante acvatice superioare), ale căror rezultate sunt incluse în această monografie. A treia etapă este legată de studierea temei Academiei Naționale de Științe a Ucrainei „Principii fundamentale de prognoză și prevenire a impactului negativ al schimbărilor climatice asupra sistemelor biotice din Ucraina” și proiectul WWF „Evaluarea restabilirii insulelor Ermakov și Tataru Mic” în anul 2018, finanțat de WWF-NL. Ecosistemul acestor insule, situate în brațul Chilia în partea ucraineană a Deltei, în anii ‚90 a suferit un impact devastator antropogen în rezultatul construcției de diguri și uscării ulterioare. Terenurile acvatice mlăștinoase cu o biodiversitate sporită, cu locuri de bătaie a speciilor valoroase și rare de pești, de încuibare și creștere a păsărilor s-au transformat în stufăriş uniform, care au încercat fără succes să îl folosească pentru producția de hârtie și celuloză, terenuri saline, nepotrivite pentru creșterea culturilor agricole și pășuni pentru cai și bovine. Ecosistemul insulei Ermakov a fost supuse unei distrugeri suplimentare în rezultatul haldei de sol, care s-a adunat în partea superioară a insulei, după lucrările de dragaj din brațul Chilia. Prin urmare, în anul 2003, pe insula Tataru Mic și în 2009 pe insula Ermakov, cu sprijinul WWF au fost începute lucrările de restabilire a ecosistemelor naturale și a regimurilor de funcționare a acestora. În anul acesta, WWF în Ucraina a stabilit sarcina de evaluare a stării actuale a hidrobiocenozelor insulelor, gradul de „naturalețe” a acestora, restabilirea ecosistemelor, asemănarea diversității cu indicatorii altor obiecte acvatice similare ale deltei. Savanții Institutului de Hidrobiologie au efectuat un studiu hidrobiologic al insulelor Ermakov și Tataru Mic din partea ucraineană a Deltei Dunării în perioada 20-25 mai 2018, sub auspiciile Departamentului WWF de la Kiev. Sarcina principală a studiului a constat în evaluarea stării actuale a hidrobiocenozelor în acvatoriile interne ale insulelor (lacuri și brațuri) în funcție de caracteristicile structurale și funcționale ale macrobentosului (zoobentos și fauna fitofilă) și ihtiofauna (pui de peşte) pentru determinarea existenței și gradului de restabilire a ecosistemelor acestora după înlăturarea digurilor și reînnoirea legăturii hidrologice cu Dunărea. Materialele prezentate în monografie sunt o parte relativ mică a studiilor generale a fluviului Dunărea desfășurate de Institutul de Hidrobiologie 14

al Academiei Naționale de Științe a Ucrainei în ultimele decenii. În primul rând, acestea sunt combinate prin complexitatea și lucrul în sectoarele transfrontaliere din cursul inferior și delta fluviului, efectuat de către colectivele științifice internaționale, rezolvarea unor probleme urgente. În condițiile actuale, printre problemele ecologice numeroase a fluviului Dunărea, problema schimbărilor climatice devine primordială. În contextul poluării antropice și activității active în domeniul gospodării apelor, schimbările climatice contribuie la schimbarea regimului acvatic, compoziției chimice și proprietăților apei. În același timp, hidrobiocenozii suferă modificări structurale, cauzate în primul rând de modificări ale reprezentării cantitative și compoziției taxonomice a biotei. Luând în considerație acest fapt, este necesar un studiu aprofundat a întregului complex de factori și influența acestora asupra transformării structural-funcționale a grupurilor acvatice și a biocenozelor. Cunoașterea mecanismelor de funcționare a ecosistemelor acvatice și adaptarea hidrobionților are o importanță științifică deosebită, deoarece deschide noi posibilități pentru elaborarea aprofundată a principalelor prevederi ale teoriei funcționării ecosistemelor acvatice și, prin urmare, pentru prognoza efectivă a dezvoltării acestora în condițiile acțiunii factorilor biotici și abiotici, pentru dezvoltarea și implementarea măsurilor practice de protecție a mediului și optimizarea utilizării resurselor biologice acvatice pentru necesitățile societății. Din punctul de vedere al gospodăriei apelor în prim-plan este sarcina elaborării, testării și implimentării ulterioare în activitatea de monitorizare hidroecologică din Ucraina a metodologiei de evaluare a stării mediului (potențialul) sistemelor hidroecologice, bazate pe principiile DCA și abordările naționale, cu ajustarea valorilor referențiale a descriptorilor pentru valorile de încălcălcare în rezultatul schimbărilor climatice, impactului uman, precum și sarcina de elaborare a măsurilor de restabilire și conservare a biodiversității naturale și de optimizare a utilizării naturii și de utilizare stabilă a potențialului biologic de producție al ecosistemelor fluviale. Astăzi, când Ucraina a făcut cu încredere un pas spre integrarea europeană, dezvoltarea comună cu țările UE, problema înțelegerii reciproce între savanți și suveranii din țările vecine a devenit extrem de importantă. Timp de mulți ani durează negocierile privind organizarea monitorizării comune 15

internaționale a sectoarelor transfrontaliere ale fluviilor. Principala problemă a implimentării a fost și rămâne în continuare implimentarea dispozițiilor Directivei 2000/60/CE în Ucraina. Având în vedere că, în conformitate cu strategia europeană, prevăzută în acest document, determinarea stării ecologice a obiectelor acvatice se realizează în funcție de prioritatea indicatorilor structurii componentei biotice și componentelor hidro-morfologice, chimice și fizico-chimice, în calitate de subsidiari, care mențin componenta biologică, sperăm că munca noastră, dedicată studiului hidrobiocenozelor din sectoarele transfrontaliere ale deltei ucrainene și românești ale fluviului Dunărea, va fi un pas înainte, atât pe calea de cunoaștere a legilor fundamentale ale naturii, cât și pe calea către atingerea obiectivului strategic al Ucrainei – aderarea la Comunitatea Europeană.

16

СHAPTER 1.

MATERIAL AND METHODS 1.1. AREA OF IVESTIGATIONS Transboundary sections of the lower Danube were investi gated in the territory of three neighboring countries (Ukraine, Moldova, Ro mania). Hydrobiological investigations have been carried out in spring, summer and autumn 2006 and 2007, on both sides of the Danube Delta – in Matita-Merhei lacustrine complex of the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve, Romania, and in Kiliya Delta, Danube Biosphere Reserve, Ukraine. In total 11 water bodies have been examined (Fig. 1.1). The investigations were carried in the following points: - Lopatna – channel, near the inflow to Matita lake, - Suez – channel, near the outflow from Matita lake, - Sulimanca – channel, at the outflow from Small Merhei lake; - Matita – lake, two transects, in the Northern and Southern parts; - Merhei – lake, two transects, in the Western and Eastern parts - Small Merhei – lake, one transversal transect. - Bystryi and Vostochniy – branches, inflow and outflow. - Anankin Kut – lake, one longitudinal transect - Deliukiv Kut and Potapiv Kut – bays, one longitudinal transect. In JDDS project aquatic macrophites, phytobenthos and macrozoobenthos were studied in autumn in 2011 (September 27. 2011 – October 04. 2011) at 16 stations in the Danube delta and up-river areas: main channel (sites 1, 2, 3), Kiliya arm and Bystryi branch (sites 4, 5, 6, 7), Tulcea arm (site 8), Sulina arm (sites 9, 10) and St Gheorge arm (sites 11, 12). We also examined 3 lakes of Gorgova-Uzlina system (site 14 of Uzlina lake, site 15 of Isak lake and site 16 of Cuibul cu Lebede lake) and Erenciuc lake (site 13). 17

СHAPTER 1

Water bodies of the Small Tataru and Ermakov and Ochakivskyi islands were examined in 2018. Detailed scheme of the sampling sites is given in the corresponding chapter. The sampling in the Ukrainian water area was carried out from the research vessel “Cyclone” and high-speed motorboat “Hydrologist”, in the Kiliya delta – with motorboats. In the Romanian water area the sampling was carried out from the “Nutria” and “RoUa” research vessels and the motor boats. Danube branches are characterized by the significant stream and significant depths that was why the benthos study was limited only to coastal area with the depths not exceeding 3 m. The hydrobiological research on the Danube islands was carried out with the help of a fishing rowing boat on Small Tataru island, and with a motorboat on Ermakov island, which was transferred over the dam from the Danube to the inland island waters.

1.2. SAMPLING Physico-chemical parameters The water samples were taken on column, with a modified Patalas device. The sub-samples taken along the transect were pooled together and an average sample per transect/ecosystem was obtained. The same methodology was used for microbiological and plankton samples. The depth and transparency were determined with a Secchi disk; temperature, pH, redox potential, conductivity, salinity and dissolved oxygen were measured on site with a WTW 340i field equipment. Part of the hydrochemical analyses were performed in the field on a portable spectrophotometer HACH DR 2400 (ammonium, nitrites, orthophosphates, chlorophyll-a); another part of the samples were frozen and taken at the laboratory for further analyses (nitrates, total phosphorus, chemical oxygen demand) and 1 l of water was taken for toxicological analyses in the lab (phenols, oil products). 18

Fig. 1.1. Objects of investigations: in purple – sites of ECAQUDAN project (A – Lopatna, B – Matita, C – Suez, D – Merhei, E – Small Merhei, F – Sulimanka, G – Vostochnyi, H – Bystryi, J – Anankin Kut, K – Deliukiv Kut, L – Potapiv Kut), in yellow – JDDS sites (1 – Giurgiulesti, 2 – Reni, 3 - Cheatal, 4 – Izmail, 5 – Kiliya, 6 – Vylkove, 7 – Bystryi, 8 – Tulcea, 9 –Mila 23, 10 – Sulina, 11 – Uzlina, 12 – St. Gheorge, 13 – Erenciuc lake, 14 – Uzlina lake, 15 – Isak lake, 16 – Culibul cu Lebede lake), in red – WWF project sites (I – Small Tataru island, II – Ermakov island, III – Ochakivskyi island).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

19

СHAPTER 1

In the field were determined: NH4+ as blue-green indophenol, NO2- as red compound with naphthyl-ethylenediaminhydrochloride (EAWAG), SRP as blue phosphomolibdate, reduced by ascorbic acid [TARTARI & MOSELLO, 1997], and chlorophyll-a after extraction in 90% ethyl alcohol (ISO 102601992). In the lab were determined: NO3- as yellow compound with sodium salicylate (EAWAG), TP by oxidation with potassium peroxodisulphate (TARTARI & MOSELLO 1997) and chemical oxygen demand by oxidability with K2Cr2O7 (EAWAG). Oil products were determined by extraction with carbon tetrachloride and chromatographic separation of hydrocarbons (according ISO 9377-4); phenols were extracted with hexane and determined according ISO 8165. The sediment samples were taken with a corer device from the un disturbed upper layer (0-5 cm) and frozen until determination of organic matter content by loss on ignition; another part was kept on ice for later analysis of phenols and oil products. Oil products in sediment were determined by extraction of organic matter in chloroform and chromatographic separation of hydrocarbons (МВВ №081/12-0116-03); phenols in sediment were determined according ISO 8165. Microbiology. Water sampling was carried on column, with a sterilized glass bottle. Part of the sample was preserved with 4% formaldehyde for the further assessment of bacterioplankton abundance. The other part was filtered immediately after sampling through the zooplankton net (65 μm mesh size) to remove the zooplankton and phytoplankton; this part was used to assess the bacterioplankton biomass. As for the chemical samples, the sediment was taken with a Corer device and 2 ml from the undisturbed upper layer were processed for determination of bacteriobenthos biomass. The bacterioplankton abundance was determined by filtering 50-100 ml water sample through a Millipore membrane filter (0,22 μm) and staining the filter with phenolic erythrosine 5% for 1 hour. After the staining, the filter was washed to remove the colorant excess and dried. One fragment of the filter was examined at the microscope and the pinkish stained cells were counted using an ocular micrometre grid. 20


The number of bacteria is given by the formula: x = SN/sV, where: S – filter’s surface (μm2), s – surface of vision field (μm2), N – the number of cells on every vision field, V – the volume of filtered sample (ml). The bacterioplankton biomass was assessed by determining the phospho lipids phosphates [WHITE et al. 1979, FINDLEY et al. 1989]. After zoo plankton and phytoplankton removal, the sample was filtered through a membrane filter (0.22 μm) from cellulose nitrate and the biological material from the 8filter is further processed for the extraction of phospholipids [IONICA & GRUITA 1985]. The phospholipids were initially extracted with a mixture chloroform-methanol; after adding a second mixture of chloroform and water 1:1, the system was split in two phases, the phospholipids being extracted in the organic phase and digested with potassium persulphate to release the phosphate (determined spectrophotometrically at 700 nm). The bacteriplankton biomass is calculated using the relationship: mg C = μmoli PO4 / 10. The bacteriobenthos biomass is determined by the same method, using 2 ml of fresh sediment instead of the water sample. Aquatic macrophytes. Macrophytes investigations have been carried out in parallel with water and sediment sampling, according to standard hydrobotanical methods [DYACHENKO 2006, KATANSKAYA 1981, RASPOPOV 1985]; hydrophytes and helophytes were considered [PAPCHENKOV 2003] and the vegetation coverage was assessed visually. Species composition was estimated using Ukrainian keys of higher plants [DOBROCHAEVA, KOTOV, PROKUDIN et al 1987]. In plant communities apportionment Braun-Blanquet ecologic-floristic approaches have been used [WESTHOFF, MAAREL 1973]. Aquatic macrophytes species list is presented for the period of inves tigations, and vegetation description – for the period of its mass development (June–August). Phytoplankton. Phytoplankton samples were taken on water column, using a modified Patalas device. Bottles of 0,5 l were filled and preserved with 4% formaldehyde. After 10–15 days of sedimentation, samples were concentrated to the volume 0,05–0,1 L and analyzed. 21

СHAPTER 1

Phytobenthos. The sampling was performed in the photic zone of the water bodies. A layer of the benthic deposits was cut using pipe benthometer to take samples. The upper layer of water was carefully poured out leaving the benthic layer of 2–3 cm. The water layer and the upper layer of the benthic deposits were poured out into the vessel and fixed with formalin solution [METODY… 2006]. Zooplankton. The zooplankton samples were taken with a five-litter Patalas in the Sulina delta and with a four-litter Patalas in the branches of Kiliya delta (Bystryi and Vostochnyi); due to the reduced depth in the lakes the samples were taken with a bucket (10 l). In total, 50 l of water taken from different layers (surface, middle and bottom) were filtered through a 65 µm pore-size net and concentrated to 100 ml; the samples were preserved with formaldehyde to 4% final concentration. The zooplankton samples were analysed in the lab, using inverted microscope, microscope and a binocular. Detailed examination in different counting chambers was performed [TSEEB 1947]. Identification of some species was carried out using light microscope Carl Zeiss “Primo Star”. For determi nation were used the keys [BALUSHKYNA, WINBERG 1979, KUTIKOVA 1970, MANUYLOVA 1964, MONCHENKO 1974, RYLOV 1978]. The biomass was determined by calculation: the length of the organism was either measured using ocular-micrometer or its average value was taken from keys. Biomass was calculated by the body mass–body length relation: w = q l 3, where w – body mass; l – length; q – proportionality coefficient, taken from [BALUSHKINA, WINBERG 1979]. Benthic invertebrate fauna. As benthic invertebrate fauna was consi dered the animals with size ranging between 1-100 mm, inhabiting the bottom of the aquatic ecosystems (zoobenthos) or attached on aquatic vegetation (phytophilous fauna). These two ecological groups are closely linked as during different stages of the life cycle the same invertebrates may belong to both categories. Structure and quantitative characteristics of these groups are considered in different chapters, but for comprehension of species 22


composition, phytophilous and benthic invertebrates were combined in the unified list under the general name − macrofauna. Phytophilous fauna. In all the investigated ecosystems, the samples of phytophilous fauna were taken considering the different ecological type of vegetation: emerged plants (EP), submerged plants (SP) and plants with floating leaves (PFL). As in different water bodies the structure of macrophytes community developed differently, the analysis of phytophilous communities will be presented at the ecosystem scale. For phytophilous fauna sampling the method developed by L. N. Zimbalevska [1981] was used. Whole or part of plants were collected from the area of 0,25 m2 into a container filled with native water. The hard steams and over-water parts of emerged plants were cut with garden pruner. Plants fragments were thoroughly washed and the water containing washed off animals was rinsed through the net (mesh N 23); the organisms were transported into the 0,2 l container and conserved with 4% formaldehyde. The plant fragments were weighted with technical balance (accuracy 0,01 mg). Macrozoobenthos. At each site sampling was carried out by two methods: using the dredge (quantitative samples) and using the kick-net (qualitative samples). For sampling in the Sulina delta in 2006–2007 a Corer device was used (sampling area 0,004 m2) and in 2011 the pole-mounted dredge with the surface area of 15x15 cm2. In the Kiliya delta the section dredge was used (sampling area 0,01 m2 *) or small Petersen dredge with the seizing of 10×10 cm2 [METODY... 2006]. Kick-net with mesh size of 500×500 μm2 was used for sampling in the macrophyte beds, among the tree roots, at the fouling of the wooden constructions and stones and from the surface of the benthic deposits. The samples were rinsed through the net (mesh № 23) and preserved with 4% formaldehyde solution. In the old delta in 2006–2007, the zoobenthos samples were taken following the transects. In the Kiliya delta, owing to the shallowness and high macrophytes coverage (100 %) the access to the middle of the lake in summer and autumn was impossible, so sampling was carried at the mouth of the lake/bay. In 2011 for each country three samples were taken at each station of the * In fall 2007 samples on the Romanian territory were also taken by the section dredge.

23

СHAPTER 1

main river channel and delta branches: 1 dredge sample from each bank and 1 integral qualitative sample (except site 1). Two samples were taken at delta lakes: one using the dredge (in the plant-free area) and one qualitative sample. Totally 128 samples of the benthic invertebrate fauna were taken over the study (Moldova – 44, Romania – 41, Ukraine – 43). After sampling the quantitative and qualitative samples were rinsed through the dip net (of the mesh size of 500 × 500 μm2) and put into the plastic vessels. The large Bivalvia mollusks were weighed immediately after the sampling on PHILIPS electronic balance, identified up to the species, taken photos and released. Other organisms in the sample were fixed by 4% formaldehyde solution in the Ukrainian area. In the Romanian area the quantitative samples were fixed by 70% alcohol and qualitative samples – by 96% alcohol. Besides, at the outflow of the Lypovanska branch from the Ermakov island to Danube (site 10) integral samples of ichthyofauna and invertebrates drift were taken by the conic ichthyoplankton net, invertebrates were processed by standard methods as it was mentioned above. Ichthyofauna. Ichthyofauna samples in the Small Tataru island were taken in the channels (sites 1, 6, 7), overgrown and free areas of the lake (sites 2, 3, 4), duckweed-covered shallow areas (site 5), in the coastal section of the Danube at the northern side of the island (see Fig. 1). In the Ermakov island samples were taken in the channels (sites 10, 11, 15), lakes (sites 12, 13, 14) and in the Solomonov branch of Danube (site 16). Totally 20 samples of juvenile fishes were taken, 10 in each island. In the taken material totally 3677 specimens were counted (2076 from the Small Tataru island and 1601 from the Ermakov island). Sampling was carried out mainly using the paddle boat and from the bank. In the near-bank zone juvenile fishes were caught using the standard net of the mill gauze N 14 with the inlet orifice diameter 0,35 m. For each sample the net was lifted 1–6 times, depending of the juveniles’ density and degree of overgrowth. Juveniles’ number per unit of the water area was calculated with account of the net lifts number and area of the inlet orifice (0.1 m2). In pelagial samples were taken by the he conic ichthyoplankton net with the 24


inlet orifice diameter 0,55 m, with cone of the mill gauze N 12 1,5 m long. The net was transported after the boat with moderate velocity, at this track length and depth of the net was registered. At the presence of current the boat was anchored and the net was located against the current for 15 min., at this flow velocity was measured by the float flowmeter. Taken samples were preserved by the standard method in the special vessels by adding of 1/10 volume portion of 40% formaldehyde solution.

1.3. LABORATORY ANALYSIS The lab investigations of phytoplanctom and phytobenthos regarding species diversity, abundance and biomass were carried using a Laboval-4 microscope using the following determinative keys [ASAUL 1975, KONDRATIEVA 1968, MATVIENKO 1965; PALAMAR-MORD VINTSEVA 1984, 1986, TSARENKO, 1990]. The phytoplankton cell numbers were counted in a chamber of 0,02 ml volume; the counting was repeated three times. Abundance calculation was done according to the formula: N=

n × v × 1000 , V

where: N – number of cells in 1 L of water; n – number of cells in the counting camera; v – volume of concentrated sample; V – initial sample volume. The biomass was calculated by multiplying the number of individuals from each species with the individual cell volume. At the laboratory the samples of phytobenthos were examined in the counting chamber of 0,02 mm3 volume. The algal biomass was determined by counting – volumetric method. The number and biomass were calculated per 10 cm2. The invertebrates in laboratory were divided into taxonomic groups. In each group the organisms were identified up to species or up to maximum possible lower taxon with using identification keys [ZHADIN 1952; 25

СHAPTER 1

CHEKANOVSKAYA 1962, PANKRATOVA 1970, 1983, KUTIKOVA, STA ROBOGATOV (EDS) 1977, TSALOLIKHIN (ED.) 1994, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2004]. Sorting of the samples and identification of the organisms was performed using biological stereoscopic microscope (MBS-10) and NIKON ECLIPSE E-200 binocular microscope. The organisms were weighed on RADWAG electronic balance to 0,0001 g. The abundance and biomass of the organisms in dredge samples was transferred into ind/m2 and g/m2 and for phytophilous fauna for 1 kg of wet weight of plants respectively. Fish larvae and juveniles were determined using the binocular microscope MBS using the determinative key and guidances [KOBLITSKAJA 1981, VOSKOBOJNIKIVA, PAVLOV 2006, URHO 1996]. Specimens’ length was measured using the ocular-micrometer to 0,5 mm, weight – by the torsion balance to 1 mg. Juveniles’ numbers in pelagial (C, spec/m3) was calculated by formula: С

Q S L

;

where: Q – number of specimens, caught in the net (spec.); S – area of the inlet orifice (m2); L – net track length (m).

1.4. DATA ANALYSIS MICROSOFT EXCEL 2007 worksheets were used for the samples’ mathematical treatment, calculation of the majority of the parameters, graphs and charts plotting. For each species of phytoplankton, phytobenthos, zooplankton and macroinvertebrates occurrence frequency was calculated using the following formula: m P= ∗ 100 , n where: m – number of aquatic ecosystems where the given species was registered; n – total number of the considered waterbodies. 26


Assessment of biological diversity of communities was carried out using Shannon – Wiener index (calculation based on abundance and biomass) [PESENKO, 1982]: H= −∑ p × log p , i 2 i th where p i – share of the i species numerical density (biomass) in total numerical density/biomass of the community. For evaluation of the species’ domination in the communities the Mordukhay-Boltovskoy’s cenotic significance index (domination index DIi) was used [MORDUCHAY-BOLTOVSKOY 1975]: DIi pi Bi / Bs , where: pi = mi/M – frequency of the species i occurrence; mi – number of samples, where the і species was found; M – total samples’ number; Bi – biomass of the іth species; Вs –total biomass of biocenoses. As dominants we consider species with index value within 0,1–1,0. The assessment of pollution level was based on the following indices: Woodiwiss (ТВІ) [LIASHENKO, ZORINA-SAKHAROVA 2012], Pantle & Buck in Sladechek modification [PANTLE, BUCK 1955] and Zelinka & Marvan. The latter three biotic indexes for macroinvertebrates communities were calculated using the ASTERICS 3.1.11 tool [AQEM, 2002]. For water quality assessment ARI (average rank index) was used of the ecological and sanitary classification, valid in Ukraine [METODIKA…, 1998]. This classification includes a set of 5 groups of indices indicating abiotic and biotic parameters of the aquatic ecosystems: hydrophysical, hydrochemical, hydrobiological, bacteriological and saprobity. Saprobity indexes Zelinka & Marvan were calculated separately for qualitative samples (abundance ind/m2) as well as for the aggregate ones (dredge+kick-net) (abundance ind/sample). The correspondence of sapro bity indexes to ecological classes was provided according to the methodology approved in JDS2 [JOINT 2007; SOMMERHAUSER et al. 2003]. Similarity of the macrozoobenthos species composition was evaluated by the Sørensen coefficient with further plotting of the cluster dendrogram in BioDiversityPro program. 27

CHAPTER 2.

ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE ON AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS IN THE DANUBE DELTA (ECAQUDAN) 2.1. HYDROCHEMICAL INVESTIGATIONS 2.1.1. WATER Depth. The floods of spring 2006 determined an increased water level in the whole Danube Delta. Consequently, in the investigated ecosystems of Sulina delta and annual average depths were generally higher than in 2007 (Fig. 2.1.1), ranging within 1,93–2,67 m in channels and 1,48–2,34 m in the lakes; different hydrological and thermal conditions in 2007 determined notable decrease of water depth, the annual averages ranging from 1,53–2,07 in channels and 0,63–1,51 m in the lakes.

Fig. 2.1.1 Depth dynamics in the investigated ecosystems between 2006–2007

28

ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE ON AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS IN THE DANUBE DELTA (ECAQUDAN)

In the younger Kiliya delta the trend was similar – depths in 2006 were higher, but the differences within the annual averages in 2006 and 2007 in the lakes and lagoons were not so high (on average 0,1–0,3 m); much higher was the depth fluctuation recorded in the Bystryi branch (from 2,18 m in 2006, to 1,53 m in 2007). Transparency. Owing to different hydrological and thermal conditions in 2006–2007, high fluctuations were recorded in the elder part of the delta. In spite of the floods of 2006, due to the filtering capacity of reedbed areas and to longer distance within the water source (Sulina arm) and the investi gated ecosystems, the suspended matter brought by Danube River could settle and the transparency was high, annual averages ranging within 1,17– 1,27 m in the channels and 1,28 1,64 m in the lakes (Fig. 2.1.2)

Fig. 2.1.2 Transparency dynamics in the investigated ecosystems between 2006–2007

In the Kiliya delta, owing to the high content of suspended matter brought by the Danube, the transparency was lower in braches in both years; in lakes, as at the Romanian side, the transparency was higher in 2006. 29

СHAPTER 2

As absolute value of transparency does not give much information, a transparency index (T/D) was determined as the ratio within the Secchi depth (transparency) and the depth of the aquatic ecosystem (D). This characteristic is extremely important in view of the of primary producers functioning: value below 0.2 means reduced development of macrophytes as the light can not penetrate the water column. For the elder part of the delta, the transparency index was higher in 2006 than in 2007; possible explanation of this fact is the increased temperature in 2007, which favored algal “bloom” from spring until autumn, decreasing water transparency (Fig. 2.1.3). In the arms of the Kiliya delta the transparency index was lower in 2006 owing to high amount of suspended matter carried by the flood.

Fig. 2.1.3 Transparency index (T/D) variation in the investigated ecosystems between 2006–20072007

In the Anankin Kut lake and Deliukiv Kut lagoon the highest transpa rency index was registered even in 2006, as the access to these water bodies can be done through the long channel, which enabled the sedimentation of the suspended matter carried by Danube. 30


Potapiv Kut lagoon, located in the proximity of Potapiv branch, was more influenced by the Danube’s water, so, the transparency index was low in both years. Temperature. In general, in the investigated ecosystems the annual ave rage temperature increased in 2007 (Fig. 2.1.4); the temperature difference was higher in Sulina delta than in the Kiliya delta. In the channels of Sulina delta the temperature increase ranged within 1,1–3,1ºC, while in lakes the amplitude was lower, ranging within 1,3–2,4ºC.

Fig. 2.1.4 Temperature variation in the investigated ecosystems between 2006–2007

In the arms of the Kiliya delta were less affected by the temperature increase in 2007: difference amounted to 0,44–0,67ºC. Maximal increase was registered in the Potapiv lagoon (1,9 ºC) whereas in the Anakin lake the annual average temperature in 2007 demonstrated the unusual decrease (0,5ºC). pH. Though normally the pH values of the Danube water is slightly alkaline, ranging within 8–9, during the study we recorded higher values, especially in Romania in 2007, – even above 10, probably as a consequence 31

СHAPTER 2

of the intensive algal blooms in this year (Fig. 2.1.5). During photosynthesis, the carbon dioxide is absorbed from the aquatic environment and pH increase temporarily; also oxygen oversaturation might occur as well. As in 2007 the temperatures increased since early spring, algal blooms occurred during the whole vegetation season. In the Sulina delta the pH increased in 2007, the amplitude of variation ranging within 0,6–2,0 units in channels, and 0,6–1,8 units in lakes; in Ukrainian part, in the Bystryi branch pH increased in 2007 by 1,23 units, whereas the average value in the Vostochnyi branch was almost constant (9,33–9,35). In the Anankin Kut and Potapiv Kut water bodies the pH slightly decreased in 2007, whereas in Deliukіv Kut it slightly increased.

Fig. 2.1.5 pH variation in the investigated ecosystems between 2006–2007

Redox potential. In all the investigated ecosystems the oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) of the water column showed negative values, indicating the reducing environment; following the pH fluctuations, it decreased drastically in 2007 in Sulina delta, while in the Kiliya delta the amplitude of fluctuations was lower (Fig. 2.1.6). 32


In the channels of Sulina delta, the decrease ranged within 50–120 mV, whereas in the lakes – 40–110 mV. In the arms of the Kiliya delta, the trends were different: in the Bystryi branch it decreased in 2007 by 80 mV, and in Vostochnyi it slightly increased. In Anankin Kut and Potapiv Kut it slightly increased in 2007, and in Deliukiv Kut – slightly decreased.

Fig. 2.1.6 ORP variation in the investigated ecosystems between 2006–2007

Conductivity and salinity. The conductivity over the studied period was almost constant, the annual average values ranging within 334–430 μS/cm, typical for freshwaters; in the Potapiv Kut lagoon the conductivity was ma ximal among all the investigated ecosystems (802–793 μS/cm); in the Deliukiv Kut lagoon the annual average conductivity ranged within 391–587 μS/cm (Fig. 2.1.7). The salinity was zero, except the Potapiv Kut lagoon, where a slight influence of the sea water could be felt, the average value of salinity ranging within 0,15–0,17‰. 33

СHAPTER 2

.

Fig. 2.1.7 Conductivity variation in the investigated ecosystems between 2006–2007

Oxygen content. Dissolved oxygen is a vital parameter in the aquatic ecosystems; in the eutrophic ecosystems, as the ones from Danube Delta, the oxygen content may drop severely over the night, when oxygen consuming processes (decomposition of organic matter, respiration) prevail over its production. Consequently, for short periods, hypoxia or even anoxia may occur, especially in summer, when oxygen solubility decreases along with tempe rature increase. In the channels of Sulina delta, the oxygen concentration ranged within 4,91–9,37 mg/l, the higher values were registered in 2007; similar situation occurs in the lakes, where oxygen content fluctuated within 7,05–11,52 mg/l, the maximum level was reached in Merhei lake in both years (Fig. 2.1.8). In the Kiliya delta, the dynamics of oxygen content differs significantly in the arms and lakes: in the arms it was almost constantly high (6,85– 6,88 mg/l), whereas in the Anakin Kut lake it reached critical levels, the annual averages ranging within 3,44–2,31 mg/l. Especially in summer it was critical 34


as the oxygen content dropped to 0,13 mg/l in 2006 and 0,5 mg/l in 2007. In Potapiv Kut and Deliukiv Kut lagoons the oxygen level was within 4,34– 6,91 mg/l; also here the oxygen content decreased during summer, but the lowest level found was 2,44 mg/l in Deliukiv Kut in 2007.

Fig. 2.1.8 Dynamics of dissolved oxygen content in 2006-2007.

The drop of oxygen content below certain limit (usually considered as 4 mg/l), may endanger the aquatic organisms, who rely on the dissolved oxygen for respiration; as the organic matter settle and the decomposing processes occur mostly at the water-sediment interface, at the bottom may occur hypoxia (or even anoxia), resulting in the decline of benthic invertebrates community or even fish death. Beside of the dissolved oxygen content (mg/l), in the aquatic ecosystems it is useful to express also the level of oxygen saturation, determined as the ratio within the actual concentration of dissolved oxygen in water and the theoretical amount of oxygen soluble at given temperature (Fig. 2.1.9). 35

СHAPTER 2

Fig. 2.1.9 Dynamics of oxygen saturation in 2006–2007

In the channels of Sulina delta the oxygen saturation varied within 6–00% in 2006, and increased in 2007 to 105–120%; though paradoxal, oxygen satu ration may increase over 100% during algal blooms, when intensive photosynthesis lead to over-saturation of the aquatic environment. In the lakes the oxygen saturation ranged within 80–110% in 2006, whereas in 2007 the over-saturation reached very high levels, the annual averages ranging within 113–160%. As in 2007 the temperature increased earlier, algal blooms were recorded since spring; still, the highest over-saturation was reached in summer. The occurrence of this phenomenon is dangerous, as high over-saturation may cause algal buoyancy and their consequent destruction, increasing the amount of decaying organic matter in the water column; during night, when photosynthesis ceases, the oxygen is consumed in respiratory pro cesses, but also for the organic matter decomposition, disappearing from the water column. In the Bystryi and Vostochnyi brunches the annual average values of the oxygen saturation varied within 70–77%. In the Potapiv Kut and Deliukiv 36


Kut lagoons it reached a slightly higher level – 68–85%, and in the Anakin Kut lake in 2006 it was critically low (39%). Chemical oxygen demand. The chemical oxygen demand (COD) is an indicator of the organic matter amount in the water column. Two substances are generally used to oxidize the organic matter: potassium permanganate and potassium dichromate, but the second one is stronger, and therefore able to decompose more stable organic compounds. In the Sulina delta, COD increased in 2007, except for the Merhei lake; among channels the highest increase was recorded in Suez (from 42 mg O/l in 2006 to 69 mg O/l in 2007), while in Lopatna and Sulimanca COD increased insignificantly (by 5–6 mg O/l) (Fig. 2.1.10).

Fig. 2.1.10 Dynamics of chemical oxygen demand in 2006–2007

In Matita and Small Merhei lakes COD ranged within 42–67 mgO/l, while in Merhei it slightly decreased (in 2006 in this lake the COD value was the highest among the investigated ecosystems). This decrease might be a consequence of the shift appeared at the level of primary producers: in summer 2006 the Merhei lake was covered with a dense vegetation 37

СHAPTER 2

carpet (mostly Chara), while in 2007, the earlier increase of temperature favored the phytoplankton development during the whole vegetation season. In the Kiliya delta the dynamics was different: in the arms the COD level decreased in 2007 to 25 mg O/l, in Anankin Kut lake remained constant (43 mg O/l), whereas in Potapiv Kut and Deliukiv Kut it fluctuated about 52 mg O/l. Nutrients. Though nitrogen and phosphorus normally occur in low concentrations in the aquatic environment, they have an essential role in the development of the primary producers, influencing consequently the structure of the whole food web. Nitrogen is contained in amino acids, proteins, enzymes, vitamins, vegetal hormones, photosynthetic pigments, while phosphorus has an essential role in the algal metabolism being involved in the cellular division, chlorophyll synthesis, photosynthesis, organic matter production, etc. Their inorganic forms (ammonium, nitrates, nitrites for nitrogen, and ortho phosphates for phosphorus) are absorbed from the environment by the algae; through photosynthesis, the algae synthesize organic matter available for the upper links of the trophic chain. Their absence can have negative effect on the aquatic biocenoses, but on the other hand, their excess may have negative impact by stimulating a hyper-production of organic matter and inducing eutrophication as well. Dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN). In the Sulina delta the annual ave rage DIN content ranged within 620–780 μg N/l in the channels and 640– 830 μgN/l in the lakes (Fig. 2.1.11); the general trend for 2006–2007 was increasing, except for Lopatna channel, where decrease was noted. The highest amount of DIN was found in the arms of the Kiliya delta, the annual averages ranging within 830–1037 μgN/l, while in the lakes it ranged within 550–830 μgN/l. Soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) In the channels of Sulina delta the annual average values of SRP ranged within 20–80 μg P/l, the highest was reached in Sulimanca channel in 2007, while in the lakes it ranged within 30–100 μg P/l, with a maximum in Small Merhei lake in 2007 (Fig. 2.1.12). 38


Fig. 2.1.11 Dynamics of dissolved inorganic nitrogen content in 2006–2007

Fig. 2.1.12 Dynamics of soluble reactive phosphorus in 2006–2007

39

СHAPTER 2

As Sulimanca channel is located at the outflow of Small Merhei, the high average in 2007 may be in correlation with the algal blooms recorded in this lake during the whole vegetation period. In the arms of the Kiliya delta SRP varied in a narrow range – 60–80 μg P/l, these values were higher than in the lakes (30–80 μg P/l). Total phosphorus (TP). In Sulina delta channels the annual average values of TP ranged within 75–145 μg P/l, while in the lakes it varied within 85–135 μg P/l (Fig.2.1.13); the highest values were found in the Sulimanca channel, Merhei and Small Merhei lakes. Similar to SRP, the variation range of the annual averages in the channels of Kiliya delta was very narrow (90–100 μg P/l), while in the lakes it varied within 50–110 μg P/l, the maximum values were reached in the Anakin Kut lake in both years.

Fig. 2.1.13 Dynamics of total phosphorus in 2006-2007

DIN/SRP. When light and temperature are adequate for the algal develop ment, nutrient availability becomes the next limiting factor – the usual way to determine the least available nutrient in the aquatic environment is the ratio TN/TP or DIN/SRP. 40


Though it was criticised by different authors as both DIN and SRP can vary greatly in time and their ratio may underestimate the available N as the SRP includes also organic compounds, this index is still used as it gives at least a raw estimate of the limiting element. The critical point, when N limitation switch to P limitation is 10: a DIN/SRP ratio higher than 10 means that is enough N in the environment and P is the limiting nutrient; when this ratio is lower than 10, N is considered the limiting factor. The annual average values in the Sulina delta were higher than 10 (Fig. 2.1.14), confirming previous studies which indicated P as limiting factor; however, in summer 2007, the ratio decreased below 10 in almost all the ecosystems (except Lopatna), indicating that during powerful algal blooms N may become limiting as well.

Fig. 2.1.14 Dynamics of DIN/SRP in 2006–2007

In the channels and lakes of the Kiliya delta the annual average values of the ratio indicate P as limiting element, except for Potapiv Kut lagoon, where in 2006 it amounted to 8. Though even here algal blooms were recorded in summer, DIN/SRP ratio did not decrease so drastically as in Sulina delta. 41

СHAPTER 2

Chlorophyll-a. Though the amount of chlorophyll a is highly variable within the algal species, it is generally accepted as a quick indicator of algal biomass, and therefore used in the monitoring of water quality. Together with other parameters like DIN, TP and oxygen saturation, chl-a gives valuable information about the trophic state of the aquatic ecosystems, which further can be used for the proper management of the water bodies. Due to the specific thermal conditions in 2007, chl-a level increased in all the investigated ecosystems in comparison with the values found in 2006, signalizing powerful algal blooms (Fig.2.1.15). The highest levels were reached in the Sulina delta, both in channels, where the annual averages ranged within 38–54 μg/l, and in lakes (44–53 μg/l). The highest increase occurred in the Matita lake, where the chl-a content increased 5 times in comparison with 2006, while the lowest occurred in Small Merhei (2 times). These differences were, probably, explained by the fact that in the Matita lake the phytoplankton is the primary producer, while in Small Merhei lake prevail the macrophytes.

Fig. 2.1.15 Dynamics of chlorophyll-a content in 2006–2007

42


In the arms of the Kiliya delta the levels of chl-a were the lowest among the investigated ecosystems (8–14 μg/l). In the lakes the highest value was in the Anankin Kut lake (26–42 μg/l), while in Potapiv Kut and Deliukiv Kut the annual averages ranged within 10–18 μg/l owing to high macrophytes coverage in these lagoons. Oil products in water column. Owing to their toxicity and persistence in the aquatic environment, the oil products are dangerous contaminant; the aromatic hydrocarbons are more difficult to decompose by bacteria and the aromatic ring may cause carcinogenic effects on the biota. Therefore, the quality standards have set very low limits of acceptance for this parameter, the usual value being 0.05 mg/l for fisheries water. The screening done in 2007 in the studied ecosystems revealed low values in the Sulina delta, both in the channels and lakes, ranging within 0–0,04 mg/l, whereas in the Kiliya delta the admitted level was overpassed in all the investigated ecosystems. The highest levels were found in the Bystryi arm (0,5 mg/l), Deliukiv Kut lagoon (0,3 mg/l) and Vostochnyi branch (0,2 mg/l) (Fig. 2.1.16).

Fig. 2.1.16 Oil products content in water column in 2007.

43

СHAPTER 2

2.1.2 Sediment Temperature. The annual average temperature of the sediment followed in general the same trend as in the water, increasing in 2007 (Fig. 2.1.17), with higher differences in Romanian part than in the Ukrainian part of delta. The amplitude of variation was lower than for the water column, the higher increase was recorded in the Lopatna channel (2,2ºC) and Merhei lake (2ºC). As for the water temperature, the arms of the Kiliya delta were less affected by the temperature increase recorded in 2007, in the Vostochnyi branch even a slight decrease was noted (0,6ºC). In Potapiv Kut lagoon increase was the highest 1,6 ºC, while in Anankin Kut, a similar decreasing trend as for water was noticed (1ºC).

Fig. 2.1.17 Dynamics of temperature in the sediment in 2006–2007

pH. Following the general increase occurred in 2007 in the water pH, the sediment pH increased as well, but the annual average values were below 10. For Sulina delta, the highest pH differences were noticed in the Lopatna 44


channel (2,4 pH units) and Merhei lake (1,3 units). In the Kiliya delta the highest differences were recorded for Bystryi and Vostochnyi brunches (0,8– 1,2 units), while in the lakes and lagoons the differences were insignificant (Fig. 2.1.18).

Fig. 2.1.18 Dynamics of pH in the sediment in 2006–2007

Redox potential. As for the water, the oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) of sediment showed negative values in all the investigated eco systems, indicating a reducing environment; following the pH fluctuations, it decreased drastically in 2007 in Romanian part of delta, while in the Ukrai nian part the fluctuations were significant only in the arms (Fig. 2.1.19). Organic matter in sediment. In 2007, the amount of organic matter decreased in all the investigated ecosystems of the Danube Delta, but with different amplitude in two parts of the delta. In Sulina delta the amplitude of variation was higher, but so was also the amount of organic matter. In the channels the highest variation was found in Sulimanca, where the organic matter content dropped from 16% in 2006 to 1,20 % in 2007 (Fig. 2.1.20). 45

СHAPTER 2

Fig. 2.1.19 Dynamics of redox potential in the sediment in 2006–2007

Fig. 2.1.20 Dynamics of organic matter in the sediment in 2006–2007

46


High differences were found also in lakes: in Merhei it dropped from 36 to 24% and in Small Merhei it dropped from 39 to 27%. In the Kiliya delta the lowest difference was recorded in the arms (from average of 5% to average of 2%), while the highest was recorded in the Anankin Kut lake (from 12 to 6%) and Potapiv Kut lagoon (from 7,5 to 2,5%). This can be explained by the increased temperature of water and sediment (by on average 1,4ºC in water, and 0,7ºC in sediment), which determined acceleration of the decomposing processes. Oil products. In the investigated ecosystems the level of oil products in sediment was generally within the accepted limits; high content was found in the Suez channel in 2006 and in the Bystryi and Vostocnyi branches in 2007 (Fig. 2.1.21).

Fig. 2.1.21 Dynamics of oil products in the sediment in 2006–2007

Correlated with the high content of oil products in the water column reached in Kiliya delta arms, we can assume that the cause was the intensified navigation. Phenols in sediment. Similar to the oil products, phenols can induce carcinogenic and genotoxic effects, but due to their relative fast biodegradation 47

СHAPTER 2

(10–20 days), they are not considered dangerous by the European standards and, therefore, not included in the priority substances list. However, their continuous presence in the environment makes their degradation impossible as the process is inhibited when the concentration is raising. Canadian standards list phenols on the priority list and US standards for marine sediments have set a maximum admissible level of phenols of 1200 μg/kg dry weight. In the aquatic environment they may occur naturally, as decomposition product of plants, vegetation and animal waste, but main sources are anthro pogenic: petroleum refining, chemical factories, waste water treatment plants, etc. In the Sulina delta the phenols content in sediment was very low, except for Small Merhei, where 2,93 mg/kg were found (Fig. 2.1.22).

Fig. 2.1.22 Phenols content in the sediment in 2007

In the Kiliya delta the highest level was reached in the Bystryi branch (6,4 mg/kg, over-passing 5 times the American stand.), followed by Vostochnyi branch (5,6 mg/kg) and Deliukiv Kut lagoon (4,7 mg/kg). 48


2.2. HYDROBIOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS 2.2.1 BACTERIOPLANKTON – BACTERIOBENTHOS In the aquatic ecosystems the bacterioplankton and bacterio benthos communities represent the level of decomposers. The micro organisms (especially bacteria) decompose the organic matter in order to obtain both the necessary energy for their biomass synthesis and for their physiological needs. In this study, the bacterioplankton and bacteriobenthos are assessed using two structural parameters: abundance and biomass, quantified in all 4 types of aquatic ecosystems. Lakes of Sulina delta. In 2006 the seasonal dynamics of bacterio plankton abundance showed an increasing trend from spring to autumn in all the studied lakes. The lowest value was recorded in May in Small Merhei (5,45 × 106 cells/ml) and the highest was recorded in October in the same lake (11,8 × 106 cells/ml) (Fig. 2.2.1 A).

Fig. 2.2.1 Seasonal (A) and annual (B) variation of bacterioplankton abundance in the old delta

49

СHAPTER 2

In 2007 the abundance dynamics demonstrated significant fluctuations between the lakes: the highest values were recorded in May in the Matita lake (10,1 × 106 cells/ml), in October in Merhei (13,2 × 106 cells/ml) and in July in Small Merhei (15,41 × 106 cells/ml). The annual averages in 2007 were higher than in 2006 in all the investigated lakes. The lowest value was reached in 2006 in the Matita lake (7,1 × 106 cells/ml) and the highest was found in 2007 in the Small Merhei (12,11 × 106 cells/ml) (Fig. 2.2.1 B). In 2006 the bacterioplankton biomass was maximal in July and minimal in May in all three lakes. The minimum value was found in Merhei in May (14,15 μg C/l), while the maximum was in Small Merhei in July (347,2 μg C/l). In 2007, in all three lakes, the biomass values were lower than in 2006, reaching the maximum in July. The lowest value was recorded in May in Small Merhei (21 μg C/l) and the highest – in July in Matita (170,4 μg C/l) (Fig. 2.2.2 A). Maximal annual average value was found in Small Merhei in 2006 (166,1 μgC/l) and it was twice higher than in 2007, and the lowest was found in Matita (82,4 μgC/l) in 2006 (Fig. 2.2.2 B)

Fig. 2.2.2 Seasonal (A) and annual(B) dynamics of bacterioplankton biomass in old delta.

50


The seasonal dynamics of bacterioplankton during the investigated period shows maximum values in July and minimum values in October. In 2006 the biomass values ranged between 206,45 μgC/g d. w. in Matita (in May) and 1601.9 μg C/g d. w. in Small Merhei (in July, Fig. 2.2.2 A). In 2007 the seasonal dynamics of biomass showed the narrow range: 157,97– 821,62 μg C/g d.w. These values were recorded respectively in Matita in May and in Small Merhei in July (see Fig. 2.2.3 A).

Fig. 2.2.3 Seasonal (A) and annual(B) dynamics of bacteriobenthos biomass in old delta

The annual average in Matita and Merhei shows close values, while Small Merhei recorded the maximum values for the studied period in 2006 (Fig. 2.2.3 B) – these values are almost twice as much in comparison with the values recorded in Small Merhei. Water bodies of the Kiliya Delta. The seasonal dynamics of bacterioplankton abundance in these aquatic ecosystems shows a decreasing trend from spring to autumn, in a narrow range of values. In 2006 the extreme values of abundance were recorded in Deliukiv: the lowest in May (6,36 × 106 cells/ml) and the highest in July (9,4×106 cells/ml). 51

СHAPTER 2

In 2007 the lowest abundance was recorded in May in Anankin Kut lake (6,06×106 cells/ml), and the highest was found in May in Potapiv Kut lagoon (10,42× 106 cells/ml) (Fig. 2.2.4A). The annual average abundances showed close values between Potapiv and Deliukiv in both years of study. The minimum annual average was found in 2007 in Anankin Kut (6,55× 106 cells/ml), while the maximum was recorded in Potapiv Kut in the same year (8,46 × 106 cells/ml). Values close to the maximum were recorded in 2006 in both Anankin Kut and Potapiv Kut (see Fig 2.2.4B).

Fig. 2.2.4 Seasonal (A) and annual (B) variation of bacterioplankton abundance in Kyliya delta

In 2006 the seasonal dynamics of biomass showed the lowest values in May and the maximum in July. The lowest biomass value was recorded in Anankin Kut (23,1 μg C/l) and the highest in Potapiv Kut (566,9 μg C/l). The year 2007 was characterized by extremely low values of biomass in comparison with 2006. The limits of variation were 24,3 μg C/l in October in Deliukiv Kut and 254,2 μg C/l in July in Potapiv Kut (Fig. 2.2.5A). The ana lysis of annual averages shows the highest values in 2006, 2–4 times higher than in 2007. In the Anankin Kut the extreme values for biomass were: respectively 335,9 and 79,14 μg C/l (Fig. 2.2.5B). 52


Fig. 2.2.5 Seasonal (A) and annual (B) dynamics of bacterioplankton biomass in lakes of Kiliya delta

The peculiarity of the seasonal dynamics of bacteriobenthos biomass is the high amplitude of the values. This fact was obvious in Potapiv Kut and Deliukiv Kut for the whole studied period (Fig. 2.2.6A). In 2006, the lowest value was recorded in Deliukiv in May (87,8 μg C/g d. w.) and maximum in Potapiv in July (367,4 μg C/g d. w.). The annual average in these two lagoons are higher than 200 μg C/g d. w., while in Anankin they reach only 150 μg C/g d. w. (see Fig. 2.2.6 B). Channels of Sulina delta. The seasonal dynamics of bacterioplankton abundance for the whole period had a normal trend, with maximum values reached in summer. The lowest abundance was recorded in Suez in May (4,89×106 cells/ml) and the maximum in Lopatna in July (14,41×106 cells/ml). In 2007 both the minimum and maximum values were recorded in Suez channel, but with a lower amplitude of variation: 8,33×106 cells/ml, in comparison with the value reached in 2006 (9,52×106 cells/ml) (Fig. 2.2.7A). The annual average in Lopatna and Sulina channels have close values, while in Suez the lowest average was noted in 2006 (7,33×106 cells/ml) and the highest in 2007 (10.59×106 cells/ml) (see Fig. 2.2.7B). 53

СHAPTER 2

Fig. 2.2.6 Seasonal (A) and annual (B) dynamics of bacteriobenthos biomass in water bodies of Kiliya delta

Fig. 2.2.7 Seasonal (A) and annual (B) variation of bacterioplankton abundance in Romanian channels

54


Due to the water connection between the lakes and channels, the seasonal dynamics of bacterioplankton biomass in the three channels was similar in both years to the trend recorded in lakes. In 2006 in all three channels maxi mal biomass was found in July and the lowest in May. The maximum value was recorded in July in Sulimanca (372 μg C/l) and the minimum in May in Lopatna (14 μg C/l). In 2007, the maximal value was lower than in 2006 (Fig. 2.2.8A) in the all lakes. As for the lakes, the annual average increased from Lopatna to Sulimanca channel (Fig. 2.2.8B).

Fig. 2.2.8 Seasonal (A) and annual(B) dynamics of bacterioplankton biomass in Romanian channels

In 2006, the seasonal dynamics of bacteriobenthos biomass showed high fluctuations in Lopatna, while in the other two the range was narrower. In July the biomass in this channel reached 590,7 μg/g d. w., while in May in Suez channel it reached only 34,4 μg/g d. w. (Fig. 2.2.9 A). In 2007 similar situation was recorded in Sulimanca channel, where the extreme values were reached: in May the biomass was 520,83 μg C/g d. w. while in October it reached only 20,37 μg C/g d. w. The evolution of annual averages shows the highest biomass in Lopatna in 2006, followed by a decreasing trend in the other channels 55

СHAPTER 2

(Fig. 2.2.9 B). The annual average in 2007 showed closer values for the three channels, the range of variation was within 216,24 – 297,45 μg C/g d. w.

Fig. 2.2.9 Seasonal (A) and annual(B) dynamics of bacteriobenthos biomass in Romanian channels

Branches of the Kiliya delta. The bacterioplankton community of the studied branches of Kiliya Delta (Bystryi and Vostochnyi) differed from the one specific for the channels of older delta – in the younger part of the delta lower abundance and higher biomass were recorded. Bacteriobenthos biomass in these arms fluctuated within in wide limits as the water flow and velocity influence the nature and the width of the sediment layer. In 2006 bacterioplankton abundance showed a decreasing trend from spring to autumn in both arms. Maximal was reached in May, at this in Bystryi it was 1.5 times higher than maximum in Vostochnyi branch. In 2007 the values were more uniform, varying within 6,16×106– 8,37×106 cells/ml. The highest values were recorded in July in both arms (Fig. 2.2.10 A). There are no significant differences between the annual averages in each arm or between them, however values in Bystryi were slightly higher (see Fig. 2.2.10 B). 56


Fig. 2.2.10 Seasonal (A) and annual (B) variation of bacterioplankton abundance in branches of the Kiliya delta

The seasonal dynamics of bacterioplankton biomass shows notable fluctu ations from very small values in spring of both years, to very high values in summer and autumn. In 2006 the biomass increased from 26,72 to 456 μgC/l in Vostochnyi, and from 44,8 to 521,1 μgC/l in Bystryi. In 2007 the biomass was very low during the whole year, ranging between 23,63 – 102,9 μgC/l. The highest values were in summer, but they were 5 times lower than in 2006 (Fig. 2.2.11A). Consequently, in Bystryi the annual averages in 2006 were 8 times higher than in 2007, and in Vostochnyi – 5 times (see Fig. 2.2.11B). The seasonal dynamics of bacteriobenthos biomass recorded maximum values in July 2006 and October 2007. In 2006 the maximal values recorded in both arms were 2,5 – 3 times higher than for the same period of 2007 (Fig. 2.2.12A). In 2007 the highest biomass was 101,33 μgC/g d. w. in Bystryi and 98,77 μg C/g d. w. in Vostochnyi. The annual averages are relatively low, fluctuating around 100 μg C/g d.w: in Bystryi branch it reached 104,43 μg C/g d. w and in Vostochnyi it reached 90,84 μg C/g d. w (Fig. 2.2.12B). 57

СHAPTER 2

Fig. 2.2.11 Seasonal (A) and annual (B) dynamics of bacterioplankton biomass in branches of the Kiliya delta

Fig. 2.2.12 Seasonal (A) and annual (B) dynamics of bacteriobenthos biomass in the Kiliya delta branches

In comparison with bacterioplankton biomass, the bacteriobenthos biomass of the investigated branches in Kiliya Delta represents only half. 58


Quantitative characterization. In the aquatic ecosystems of the Danube delta the heterotrophic bacterioplankton is controlled by two endogenous factors: development of primary producers (through the organic matter as a consequence of phytoplankton turnover or macrophytes decay) and the zooplankton pressure during the “crisis” period (cyanobacterial blooms). Analysis of many-year evolution of heterotrophic bacteria in the elder part of the delta over the last 25–30 years showed its cyclic character, according to phytoplankton evolution and the nutrient charge of the Danube River. The many-year averages of heterotrophic bacteriobenthos shows the same cyclic evolution, with maximums and minimums every 8–9 years. Analysis of the many-year averages in the lakes of the elder part of the delta (Matita, Merhei, Small Merhei) showed the highest abundance in Small Merhei (10,35×106 cells/ml) and the lowest in Matita (8,18×106 cells/ml) (Fig. 2.2.13). Over the investigation period of these three lakes, the highest abundance was reached in 2007, with a maximum of 12,08×106 cells/ml in Small Merhei (see Fig. 2.2.1 B).

Fig. 2.2.13 Bacterioplankton abundance in all the investigated ecosystems

59

СHAPTER 2

In comparison with the lakes from the younger part of the delta, the lakes of the elder part of the delta have higher abundances (see Fig. 2.2.13). In the Kiliya delta the highest abundance was recorded in Potapiv Kut (8,5×106 cells/ml), the other two aquatic ecosystems having lower values – 7,21 × 106 cells/ml in Anankin Kut and 7,12×106 cells/ml in Deliukiv Kut (see Fig. 2.2.13). In the annual evolution of these three ecosystems the values of 2006 were slightly higher than of 2007 (see Fig. 2.2.1B). Comparing the variation range for total bacterioplankton recorded in the Kiliya Delta in summer 1998 [BASHMAKOVA & MULLER 2003] with the summer 2006–2007 one can notice that in the recent years these limits were more restraint, fluctuating between 6,16 × 106 – 9,4 × 106 cells/ml while in 1998 the values were within 4,94×106 – 14,05×106 cells/ml. A comparison between the elder and the younger parts over the years 2006–2007 showed that in the elder part the range of variation was larger than in the younger (respectively 4,89×106 – 15,41×106 and 5,22 × 106 – 10,42 × 106 cells/ml), reflecting the influence of the Danube water quality and discharge. The abundance annual averages in the investigated channels of the elder part of the delta (Lopatna, Suez, Sulimanca) showed very narrow range of variation (8,96×106 – 9,29×106 cells/ml) close to the range recorded in the lakes, as a consequence of water circulation between these ecosystems (see Fig. 2.2.13). In the investigated arms of the Kiliya delta, the highest abun dance was recorded in Bystryi (8,18×106 cells/ml), while in Vostochnyi it reached 6,44×106 cells/ml. The increasing trend of abundance in the lakes of elder part of Danube delta from Matita to Small Merhei was reflected also in the biomass trend. The range of variation for the many-year averages was within 101,4– 126,14 μg C/l; the highest was found in Small Merhei in 2006 – 166,1 μg C/l (see Fig. 2.2.2B). The analysis of bacterioplankton biomass in the elder part of the delta over the period 1998–2007 revealed that the values found during this study were lower than in other ecosystems (Fig. 2.2.14). The highest biomass was reached in the Kiliya delta in 2006 – the highest annual average was found in Anankin Kut lake: 335 μg C/l (see Fig. 2B). 60


In comparison with 2007 the annual biomass of aquatic ecosystems in the Kiliya delta in 2006 was 2–4 times higher. The many-year averages have the decreasing trend from Anankin Kut (207,52 μg C/l) to Deliukiv Kut (172,85 μg C/l) (see Fig. 14).

Fig. 2.2.14 Bacterioplankton biomass in lakes and lagoons in 1998–2007.

The biomass in the investigated channels had similar trend with the one recorded in the neighboring lakes: it increased from Lopatna (99.58 μg C/l) to Sulimanca (137,66 μg C/l), with very narrow variation range (see Fig. 2.2.15). The biomass in Bystryi branch was the highest from all the investi gated ecosystems, reaching 241,6ºμgºC/l; the average biomass value for arms is double than the average value for channels. The bacteriobenthos biomass showed higher values than in the water column, with the highest values in the elder part of the Danube delta. In the lakes it ranged between 379 μg C/g d. w. in Matita lake and 807 μg C/g d. w in Small Merhei (Fig. 2.2.16). In other categories of ecosystems biomass was three times lower than the average biomass of the lakes of Danube delta, the 61

СHAPTER 2

lowest values were reached in the Kiliya delta arms, where the biomass was below 100 μg C/g d. w (see Fig. 2.2.16).

Fig. 2.2.15 Bacterioplankton biomass in the investigated ecosystems

Fig. 2.2.16 Bacteriobenthos biomass in all the investigated water bodies and water courses.

62


Bacteriobenthos development is influenced by the quality and quantity of organic matter in sediment, as well as other factors like temperature, redox potential, oxygen saturation, etc. For channels and branches, the water velocity and discharge have the determinant role in sediment layer formation. 2.2.2. AQUATIC MACROPHYTES The community of aquatic macrophytes has an important role in the ecosystem functioning: as bio-filters of pollutants, as shelters and nesting sites for fishes and zooplankton, together with phytoplankton they produce oxygen trough photosynthesis, increasing the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water column, etc. Due to their sensitivity to environmental quality, Annex V of WFD suggest the use of macrophytes in the assessment of the ecological state of water bodies. As the ecosystems differ significantly, the results will be presented distinctly for lakes and channels of Sulina delta, and lakes/lagoons and arms of Kiliya delta. Water bodies of Sulina delta Matita lake is surrounded by the reed-cattail vegetation (Phragmitetum communis (Gams) Schmale, Typho angustifoliae-Phragmitetum australis Tx. et Preisign, Typhetum angustifoliae Pignati, Typhetum latifoliae G. Lang). The vegetation coverage was quite restraint (10–30%). Along the right bank, where the depth can reach 2,0 m, the belt of vegetation with floating leaves (Nymphaeetum albo-luteae Novinski, s/ass. N. a-l-nupharetosum) occurred, its width sometimes reached 20–30 m. Projective cover (PC) in vegetations reached 90–95%. Communities of fennel-leaved and clasping-leaved pondweed (Potamogeton pectinatus, P. perfoliatus), hornwort (Ceratophyllum demersum), ling (Trapa natans), fresh-water soldier (Stratiotes aloides), as well as duckweed (Lemna trisulca), frog’s bit (Hydrocharis morsus-ranae) and arrowhead (Sagittaria sagittifolia) co-existed. Along the other banks, with depths up to 1,5 m, coenosis of Ceratophylletum demersi (Soo) Eggler with Canada water weed (Elodea canadensis), P. pectinatus and 63

СHAPTER 2

small pondweed (P. pusillus) developed, but PC was less than 15–20%. Stratiotes aloides occurred only rarely. In vegetation mass development of the green filamentous algae were noticed. In 2006, at high-water level, patches of Ceratophyllum demersum occurred throughout all lake area, but at the depth above 2,0 m PC of vegetations decreased to 5–10%. Merhei is a big lake, where the vegetation coverage amounted up to 60–75%. Along the banks, where the depth was up to 1,0 m, in the upper part and in the center of the lake large spots (diameter from 20 to 75 m) were formed by the association Nymphaeetum albo-luteae communities with Hydrocharis morsus-ranae and Trapa natans with Stratiotes aloides. PC in vegetations amounted to 85–90%. Cenoses of Ceratophylletum demersi and Charophycea algae developed among spots of vegetation with floating leaves. In the middle part of the lake they covered 80% of the bottom area. Rarely, specimens of meakin (Myriophillum spicatum) and Potamogeton pectinatus were noticed. Closer to the left bank the portion of Chara sp. in total vegetation coverage increased. On the near-bank sections of the lake small groups of the cattail (Typha angustifolia), surrounded by yellow water-lily (Nuphar lutea), rarely occurred. In the submerged vegetation also prevails Chara sp. and Ceratophyllum demersum, with inclusion of Myriophillum spicatum. Along left bank, bottom is totally covered by Charophycea algae. At high water level, occurred in spring–summer 2006, the central part of the lake was occupied by big spots of cenoses Potametum perfoliati Koch em. Pass. and Myriophyllo-Potamogetonetum perfoliati Pass. During the fall, development of filamentous algae along with the higher aquatic plants was observed. Small Merhei lake. This is the smallest lake, but with the largest vegetation coverage (70–80%) among the investigated lakes in Sulina delta. Along the left bank the narrow border of Nuphar lutea with inclusion of white water-lily (Nymphaea alba) developed. On the lake occurred clumps, consisting of cattail and reed, bordered with coenoses of white water lily, yellow water-lily and duckweed. The right bank was completely covered by vegetation: mostly communities of Phragmitetum communis, Typho angustifoliae-Phragmitetum australis, Typhetum angustifoliae occurred, together 64


with small communities of Ceratophyllum demersum and Myriophyllum spicatum. Water bodies of Kiliya delta Anankin Kut lake, located in the inner part of the delta water, is surrounded by reed vegetation. Here, the vegetation coverage amounted up to 90–95%. Practically, the upper part of the water body was covered by solid vegetation with floating leaves, belonging to the associations Trapetum natantis Muller et Gors and Nymphaeetum albo-candidae Pass. In the middle part monodominant vegetation of hornwort (Ceratophylletum demersi) prevailed. The southern, more narrow part of the water body was occupied by the communities Trapetum natantis with Ceratophyllum demersum in the lower layer. Beside dominants, small “spots” of Nympho idetum peltatae (All.) Muller et Gors and separate individuals of Stratiotes aloides were noted. Deliukiv Kut lagoon is separated from the sea by the sand pit; it is surrounded by reed vegetation from almost all sides, except the northern part, open to Ankudinov arm. The upper part is divided in two arms by the Phragmites australis vegetation and its surface is totally covered by the association Sparganietum erecti Roll. In the middle part of the lake the vegetation consists of Trapa natans (sub-association S.e.-trapetosum) together with Nuphar lutea (sub-association S.e.-nupharetosum). In the lower part, nearby Ankudinov branch, small area is occupied by association Potametum nodosi (Soo) Segal. Beside these associations, in the water body occur rush flower (Butomus umbellatus), Sagittaria sagittifolia, Ceratophyllum demersum, Pota mogeton pectinatus, Spirodela polyrrhyza, floating moss (Salvinia natans). Potapiv Kut lagoon is not completely separated from the sea and the vegetation coverage is up to 90–95%. During the 1990ies its area increased due to the erosion of the Zhelannaya pit; today, this new part of the lagoon is occupied by associations of Myriophylletum spicati Soo and Ceratophylletum demersi; nearby the outlet to the sea, thinned vegetation of Potamogeton pectinatus were noticed. In the upper part, nearby the channel connecting the lagoon with Potapiv branch, small areas were occupied by coenoses Potametum nodosi (Soo) Segal). The elder part of the lagoon is covered by 65

СHAPTER 2

Trapetum natantis association, where rarely occurred Potamogeton pectinatus L. and Enteromorpha sp. In the middle part, in the areas without Trapa natans, associations of Elodeetum сanadensis Eggler with filamen tous algae occurred. Vast areas of Phragmitetum communis and Typhetum angustifoliae are surrounded by Ceratophylletum demersi coenoses. In spring, in most of the investigated ecosystems, communities of Potametum crispi Soo, Potametum pectinati Carstensen, Potametum perfoliati, Ceratophylletum demersi developed. In autumn all water bodies were characterized by the mass development of Salvinia natans (ass. Salvinio-Spirodeletum Slavnic, Lemno-Salvinietum natantis Migan et Tx.) and duckweed coenoses (ass. Lemno minoris – Spirodeletum polyrrhizae Koch em. Muller et Gers). Water courses of Sulina delta Lopatna channel. In this natural channel the vegetation coverage reached 65–70%. Along the right bank associations of Phragmites australis, Typha angustifolia and T. latifolia occurred, while the opposite bank was totally covered by reed vegetation. In summer the water level in the channel decreased considerably. The emerged vegetation was followed by the belt of the vegetation with floating leaves; along the right bank its width reached 15–20 m and along the left bank 20–30 m (ass. Nymphaeetum albo-luteae with inclusions of Stratiotes aloides). Projective cover in vegetation amounts up to 90%. Beside the dominant, the following species were noticed: Hydrocharis morsus-ranae, Trapa natans, Sagittaria sagittifolia, manna grass (Glyceria maxima), in the lower layer – Ceratophyllum demersum. In autumn in vegetation developed free-floating plants – ass. Salvinio-Spirodeletum, LemnoSalvinietum natantis. Suez channel. This is an artificial watercourse within two lakes – Matita and Merhei 25–30 m wide. At the investigated section the vegetation cove rage was up to 60–65%. Banks were covered by willows (Salix sp.) and ve getation of Phragmitetum communis, Typho angustifoliae-Phragmitetum australis developed up to the water edge. Among them, separate individuals of water plantain (Alisma plantago-aquatica), armed bur-reed (Sparganium erectum), Glyceria maxima and wood bulrush (Scirpus silvaticus) occurred. 66


In spring 2006, in water occurred water moss Fontinalis sp., while in summer 2006 among the emerged vegetation developed solid vegetation of the ass. Ceratophylletum demersi; Nuphar lutea, Nymphaea alba, Sagittaria sagittifolia occurred only rarely. In 2007, at low water level, communities of white and yellow water lilies dominated along one bank, while along the other bank, with sharp bed slope, only separate “spots” of Ceratophyllum demersum occurred. Sulimanca Channel – natural watercourse, which flows from the Small Merhei lake to Kiliya arm, practically opposite the town of Vylkove. At the outflow from the lake, the vegetation coverage along the banks was very low (5–10%), consisted of Phragmites australis. With the distance, the reed belt became narrower and Salix sp. bushes started to dominate. In the lower layers of the reed vegetation, up to 2 m depth, Myriophyllum spicatum and Ceratophyllum demersum occurred rarely. Water courses of the Kiliya delta High flow velocity, considerable depth and high turbidity impede the vegetation development in the big arms. Consequently, in Vostochnyi and Bystryi the vegetation coverage was very low (respectively up to 15 and 1–2%). Here occur only thinned communities of Potametum nodosi, Potameto-Ceratophylletum demersi, Potametum perfoliati, Potametum pectinati Carstensen, Potametum crispi Soo. associations. They are spread as narrow belt along banks, up to the depth of 0.6-0.7 m. The helophytes are represented by Typhetum angustifoliae, Typho angustifoliae-Phragmitetum australis, Phragmitetum communis and separate “spots” of Scirpetum lacustris Schmale, Glycerietum maximae Hueck, Butometum umbellate (Konczak) Philippi communities. In the investigated ecosystems 32 higher aquatic plants species of three ecological groups occurred, together with aquatic moss, Charophycea and green filamentous algae. Three species – Nymphoides peltata, Salvinia natans, Trapa natans are included into the Red Book of Ukraine [CHERVONA…2009], and the last two are also protected by the Bern convention. Besides, Nymphoides peltata, Salvinia natans, Trapa natans, Nymphaea alba, N. candida, Nuphar lutea are 67

СHAPTER 2

included in the Red List of the aquatic macrophytes of Ukraine [GEYNI, SYTNIK 1993]. The first three mentioned are considered as highly endangered species and the last three as endangered. According to [KOKIN 1982] water quality assessment using aquatic plants has a supportive role, most of them developing mainly in β-mesosaprobic and oligosaprobic zones; according to other authors [KONONOV 1956], the occurrence of certain species is not the best indicator of water quality and the general biological characteristic should be considered. The trophic state might be assessed using botanical indicators like Lobelia dotmanna L., Isoetes lacustris L., Myriophyllum alterniflorum. Development of the duckweeds indicates incipient eutrophication, while mass development of the filamentous algae indicates considerable eutrophication of the water body; maintaining or even accelerating the actual trophic status can lead to major structural and functional changes within the aquatic ecosystem [PUZACHENKO 1989]. 2.2.3. PHYTOPLANKTON Over the years 2006–2007 in the investigated ecosystems 427 algae species (453 subspecies taxa) of 8 groups were registered (See Annex). The highest species richness was found for Chlorophyta (147 species, mainly of the order Chlorococcales) and Bacillariophyta (136 species). Other groups were represented by the following number of species: Cyanoprokaryota – 46; Euglenophyta – 44; Chrysophyta – 25; Xanthophyta – 17; Dinophyta – 7 and Cryptophyta – 5 species. In 2006, 290 algae species were found, belonging to the following groups: Chlorophyta – 107, Bacillariophyta – 90, Cyanoprokaryota – 20; Euglenophyta– 31; Chrysophyta – 22; Xanthophyta – 12; Dinophyta – 7 and Cryptophyta – 4 species. In 2007, the species number increased to 344: Chlorophyta – 117, Bacillariophyta – 119, Cyanoprokaryota – 44; Euglenophyta – 33; Chrysophyta – 8; Xanthophyta – 13; Dinophyta – 7 and Cryptophyta – 3 species. 68


In both years the phytoplankton composition was dominated by Chlorophyta and Bacillariophyta. Still, due to the different hydrological and thermal conditions, substantial changes occurred in Chrysophyta and Cyanoprokaryota within 2006 and 2007: Chrysophyta decreased from 22 (7,6% of total species number) to 8 (2,3%) and no case of significant development of this group was noticed in 2007, while the number of Cyanoprokaryota species increased from 20 (6,9% of total species number) to 44 (12,8%). In the lakes of Sulina delta considered in this study, Matita, Merhei and Small Merhei, 288 algae species from 8 groups were identified. The majority of the species belongs to Chlorophyta (123), considerably lesser to Bacillariophyta (69), Cyanoprokaryota and Euglenophyta included respectively 36 and 24 species, while the number of species from other groups was minor (Fig 2.2.17). Due to the notable differences in the hydrological and thermal regime within the years 2006 and 2007, the number of species varied within wide limits in the investigated ecosystems: the minimal were found in spring 2006 in the Matita and Merhei lakes (respectively 20 and 21 species) and the maximal (99 species) were registered in the same water bodies in autumn 2007. The seasonal dynamics has shown high variations in phytoplankton composition, the groups number ranging within 4–8: in spring 2006, no species of Xanthophyta and Dinophyta was found and only one Cyanoprokaryota species was found. In 2007 the phytoplankton of the Small Merhei lake included 6 groups, in spring and summer no species of Chrysophyta and Xanthophyta groups was found. Quantitative indices of the phytoplankton in the Sulina delta lakes also varied within wide limits. Similar as for species richness, the lowest quanti tative indices were found in spring 2006 in the Matita and Merhei lakes, (respectively abundance 650 and 1100 th. cells/dm3, biomass – 0,36 and 0,27 mg/dm3). The highest indices for abundance were registered in Small Merhei lake in summer and autumn 2007 – 88 525 and 85 075 th. cells/dm3, and for biomass – in Merhei and Small Merhei lakes in summer 2006 – 7,44 and 5,89 mg/dm3 respectively (Fig. 2.2.18, 2.2.19). 69

СHAPTER 2

Fig. 2.2.17. Phytoplankton species composition (a – number of species, b – % of species)

70


Fig. 2.2.18 Seasonal dynamics of the phytoplankton abundance

In 2007 Cyanoprokaryota dominated in terms of abundance in all seasons, while Bacillariophyta, Euglenophyta, and Chlorophyta dominated in terms of biomass. In the investigated lakes/lagoons of the Kiliya delta, Anankin Kut lake, Potapiv Kut and Deliukiv Kut lagoons, 232 species of 8 groups were 71

СHAPTER 2

identified during the study. The highest species richness was found for Bacillariophyta (91), Chlorophyta (70), Euglenophyta (30), Cyanoprokaryota (18) and Сhrysophyta (15) groups; species number of other groups was minor (see Fig. 2.2.17). According to the season, the phytoplankton composition varied in wide limits: 3–7 groups were registered, which comprised 21–75 species. The lowest species richness was found in summer 2006 in Potapiv Kut (21) and Deliukiv Kut lagoon (26), while the highest – in summer 2007 in Potapiv Kut (75) and Anankin Kut (68 species). Quantitative indices varied within wide limits. The lowest abundance was registered in summer 2006 in Potapiv Kut lagoon (1725 th. cells/dm3) and the highest in spring 2007 in Anankin Kut lake (24 250 th. cells/dm3). The lowest biomass was found in spring 2006 in Deliukiv Kut lagoon (1,19 mg/dm3) and the highest – in Anankin Kut lake (in autumn 2006 – 5,01 and in 2007 – 5,09 mg/dm3). In general, Chlorophyta and Bacillariophyta were dominant in terms of abundance and biomass, but Cyanoprokaryota and Euglenophyta had also significant development; for instance, in autumn, in Anankin Kut lake, Euglenophyta was dominant in terms of biomass. In the investigates channels of Sulina delta, Lopatna, Suez and Sulimanca 274 algae species of 8 groups were found: Chlorophyta (94), Bacillariophyta (81), Cyanoprokaryota (36), Euglenophyta (23), Сhrysophyta (19); species number of other groups was minor. Similar to the lakes, species number varied within wide limits, ranging within 19–86: the lowest was found in the Suez channel in spring 2006, and the highest – in Sulimanca channel in summer 2007. The seasonal dynamics shows the same fluctuations at the group level as for the lakes, the number of groups ranging within 4–8; for instance, in spring 2006, the phytoplankton consisted only of four groups: Cryptophyta, Chlorophyta, Chrysophyta and Bacillariophyta. Quantitative indices of the channels also varied within wide limits. The lowest abundance was found in spring 2006 in Lopatna (3700 th. cells/dm3) and the highest in summer 2007 in the Suez channel (113 825 th. cells/dm3), 72


this was maximal, registered among all the investigated ecosystems during the study period.

Fig. 2.2.19 Seasonal dynamics of the phytoplankton biomass

The lowest biomass was found in spring 2006 in the Suez channel (0,65ºmg/dm3) and in spring 2007 in Sulimanca channel (0,75 mg/dm3), 73

СHAPTER 2

while the highest was registered in summer 2006 in Lopatna channel (6,90 mg/dm3) and in spring 2007 in Suez channel (7,93 mg/dm3). In 2006, Chlorophytа and Bacillariophyta dominated in terms of abundance and biomass in spring and summer, while Cyanoprokaryota dominated in autumn. In 2007 Cyanoprokaryota were the most abundant, while Bacillariophyta, Euglenophyta, and Chlorophyta dominated in terms of biomass. In the branches of Kiliya delta, Bystryi and Vostochnyi, during the investigated period 117 algae species of 7 groups were identified. The highest species richness belonged to Bacillariophyta (57) and Chlorophyta (41), species number of other groups being minor. Similar to the lakes of the Kiliya delta, according to the seasonal variation, 3–7 groups were found, comprising 15–44 species. The lowest species richness was found in spring 2006 in Vostochnyi and the highest – in summer 2007 in Bystryi branch. In comparison with the wide variation limits reached in lakes, in arms the quantitative indices varied in relatively narrow limits. The lowest abundance was found in summer 2006 in Vostochnyi branch (763 th. cells/dm3) and the highest – in summer 2007 in Bystryi brunch (3163 th. cells/dm3). The lowest biomass was registered in spring 2006 in Bystryi (0,63 mg/dm3) and the highest– in autumn 2007 in Vostochnyi (2,50 mg/dm3). Bacillariophyta was the dominant group during all the seasons, both in terms of abundance and biomass (respectively 75,4–85.1% and 91,8–96.7%); the dominant species belonged to Centrophycea class (particularly Stephano discus subtilis, Cyclotella sp., Cyclotella meneghiniana). Species composition. Over the years 2006–2007 in the investigated ecosystems the following number of species was identified: Matita lake – 227, Merhei lake – 203, Small Merhei lake – 146, Lopatna channel – 183, Sulimanca channel – 181, Suez channel – 150, Anankin Kut lake – 177, Potapiv Kut lagoon – 141, Deliukiv Kut lagoon – 110, Bystryi branch – 85, and Vostochnyi branch – 78 species (see Fig. 2.2.17). In all water bodies occurred (i.e. had 100% frequency of occurrence) the following species: Gomphosphaeria lacustris, Cryptomonas sp., Chlamydomo74


nas sp., Monoraphidium contortum, Micractinium pusillum, Tetrastrum triangulare, Scenedesmus quadricauda (= Desmodesmus communis), Didymocystis planctonica, Melosira granulatа (= Aulacoseira granulata), Stephanodiscus astraea, S. hantzschii, Synedra tenera, Navicula cryptocephala, Nitzschia acicularis, and N. palea. Most of the algae species had no association to the certain group of ecosystems. However, some peculiarities were noticed: all Cryptophyta species (except Cryptomonas sp.) and practically all Xanthophyta species occurred only in the lakes and channels of the Sulina delta. Also only in these water bodies Cyanoprokaryota of the genera Spirulina, Lyngbya, Romeria, Phormidium, Cylindrospermum were registered. In 2007, Lyngbya limnetica reached significant abundance (up to 90% of the total) in the lakes of the Sulina delta. Significant richness of Chrysophyta was found in spring 2006, when 11 species were identified; usually Chrysophyta species develop under low temperatures and in water with relatively low content of organic matter. In spring 2006 they were part of the dominant complexes in the Anankin Kut lake (Kephyrion rubri-claustri – 5,7% of the total abundance), in Suez channel (Stenokalyx parvula – 12,3% of the total abundance), in Matita lake (Stenokalyx monilifera – 10,0% of the total abundance). In summer 2006, significant development of Chrysophyta was found only in the Matita lake (Dinobryon acuminatum, 5,8% of the total abundance). Overall, the highest species number of these algae was registered in the Anankin Kut lake, Lopatna channel (13 species in each) and Sulimanca channel (12 species). The highest number of Euglenophyta species was registered in Anankin lake (25), in Lopatna channel (18), Matita lake (17) and Deliukiv Kut lagoon (15) (see Fig. 2.2.17). In some cases, Euglenophyta reached considerable biomass: e.g. in summer 2006 in Deliukiv Kut lagoon (41,7% of the total biomass), in Anankin Kut lake in autumn 2006 and in all seasons of 2007 (respectively 25,4%, 41,4%, 39,1% and 41,8%). Though generally Bacillariophyta were widely spread, some species occurred only in certain ecosystems. For instance, Bacillaria paradoxa, specific for brackish-waters, was found only in Anankin Kut lake and Potapiv Kut lagoon (in the second it was an element of the dominant complex). Other 75

СHAPTER 2

brackish-water species, for example Nitzschia longissima v. reversa occurred in Bystryi branch and all lakes of the Kiliya delta, Coscinodiscus lacustris occurred in Bystryi branch and in Deliukiv Kut lagoon. All species of the genera Eunotia and Epithemia occurred only in the ecosystems of Sulina delta. During the period of investigations, also rare occurring species were found. In Lopatna channel we identified Phacus megapirenoides, Eudorina elegans, and Ankyra judae, In Matita and Merhei lakes occurred Desmidium aptogonum var. acutum (of the order Desmidiales), Lobomonas ampla, Lobomonas stellata, and Volvulina steinii (of the order Volvocales). Only Matita lake were found Closterium venus, Staurodesmus cuspidatus, Staurastrum incospicuum. In general, Matita and Merhei lakes were notable for considerable diversity of the orders Desmidiales and Volvocales (in Matita – respectively 12 and 7, in Merhei – 9 and 12 species). Phytoplankton quantitative development indices varied within wide limits. The lowest abundance was registered in Bystryi and Vostochnyi branches (1062 and 1850 th. cells/dm3 respectively) and the highest in Suez channel (113 825 th. cells/dm3), Sulimanca channel (87 800 th. cells/dm3), as well as in Small Merhei lake (88 525–85 075 th. cells/dm3) (Fig. 2.2.18). Seasonal dynamics of the phytoplankton quantitative indices in the investigated ecosystems presented some peculiarities. Usually, the lowest indices were recorded in spring, except Anankin Kut lake, where in spring the abundance was maximal. For Bystryi and Vostochniy branches, as well as for Deliukiv Kut lagoon, only minor seasonal variation occurred. Maximum values in summer were character for Lopatna and Suez channels, Small Merhei and Potapiv. Increase of the phytoplankton abundance in autumn was registered in Sulimanca channel, Matita and Merhei lakes. The values of phytoplankton biomass varied within considerably narrower limits. Similar to abundance, the lowest values were registered in spring in Bystryi and Vostochnyi branches (respectively 0,63 and 0,88 mg/ dm3); the highest were found in summer in Lopatna and Suez channels (5,55 and 7,93 mg/dm3) (Fig. 2.2.19). Overall, seasonal dynamics of the biomass is in accordance with the abundance dynamics – in most of the ecosystems, the minimum values were 76


registered in spring, and maximum in autumn; exceptions were Anankin Kut lake, where minimum biomass was registered in summer, and Lopatna and Suez channels, where in summer the maximum was reached. The Shannon-Weaver diversity indices for the period of study, calculated based on phytoplankton abundance (H/N), ranged within 2,63– 5,52 bit/ind; the lowest were registered in Bystryi branch in spring 2007 and in Merhei lake in summer 2006, while the highest was registered in Potapiv Kut in summer 2007. There was no clear trend in the dynamics of biodiversity indices for all the investigated ecosystems. The highest values were registered in summer 2006 in Sulimanca channel, Matita, Small Merhei and Anankin Kut lakes and in Small Merhei lake, Bystryi and Vostochnyi branches in 2007. Spring maximum was peculiar for Vostochnyi branch and Deliukiv Kut lagoon in 2006 and for Lopatna channel in 2007. The biodiversity indices calculated based on phytoplankton biomass (H/B) also varied within narrow limits. The lowest value (2,19 bit/g) was registered in summer 2007 in Suez channel and the highest in the same season in Sulimanca channel (5,49 bit/ind). As a rule, for 2006, growth of Н/В from spring to summer was noticed, for example in Lopatna channel, Matita and Merhei lakes, Bystryi branch; in Small Merhei and Anankin Kut lakes and Deliukiv Kut lagoon the maximum value was reached in summer, except for Potapiv Kut lagoon where it was minimal. During 2007, growth of H/B from spring to fall was noticed in all water bodies of the Kiliya delta. For Lopatna and Sulimanca channels, Small Merhei lake, Bystryi and Vostochnyi branches summer maximum and a slight decreasing trend in fall was registered. 2.2.4. ZOOPLANKTON In the Sulina delta lakes (Matita, Merhei and Small Merhei) over the period of investigations 127 species (taxa) of zooplankton were found. The highest number of species belongs to Rotatoria (66), Crustacea comprised lesser number (Copepoda – 20, Cladocera – 40). Veligers of Zebra mussel (Dreissena) were found in Matita and Merhei lakes. 77

СHAPTER 2

Total number of species in the separate water bodies varied in close li mits. In Matita and Small Merhei lakes 77 and 80 species were registered. The highest species richness (102 species) was registered in the Merhei lake. Maximal values were registered in 2006 summer, and in 2007 – in spring. In 2006 in the water bodies of the Sulina delta Rotatoria dominated in terms of abundance. Values of abundance varied in wide limits – from 15,87 to 1363,67 th. ind/m3. The lowest values were registered in summer in the Small Merhei lake, and maximal – in the same water body in autumn, because of mass development of the limnophilous rotifers Asplanchna prio donta and Brachionus diversicornis. Rotifers and Copepoda dominated in terms of biomass. The lowest biomass (0,03 g/m3) were registered in spring, and maximal (25,56 g/m3) in autumn in the Small Merhei lake (like those of abundance). In 2007 zooplankton quantitative indices varied within the following limits: abundance from 366,70 to 1285,50 th. ind/m3, biomass – from 2,18 to 13,64 g/m3. Minimal abundance was registered in spring in the Matita lake, and minimal biomass – in spring in the Merhei lake. Maximal quantitative indices (both abundance and biomass) were registered in autumn in the Small Merhei lake. Rotifers dominated in terms of abundance during all seasons of investigations; at the same time maximal biomass in different water bodies, especially in autumn, were formed by Copepoda and relatively big Cladocera of the limnophilous complex, particularly Sida crystallina, Pleuro xus aduncus, Acroperus harpae. In the Kiliya delta water bodies (Anankin Kut lake, Potapiv Kut and Deliukiv Kut lagoons) during the period of investigations 99 species (taxa) of zooplankton were found. The richest in species were rotifers (52 species), followed by Cladocera (29) and Copepoda (17), Dreissena’s veligers also were found. Number of species in the separate water bodies varied slightly. In Anankin Kut and Deliukiv Kut – respectively 70 and 75 species were registered, in the Potapiv Kut lagoon – 56. The lowest values of zooplankton species richness were registered in autumn 2006 in Potapiv Kut (11 species), and maximal – in autumn 2007 in Anankin Kut (37 species). 78


Quantitative indices of the Kiliya delta water bodies varied within the wide limits. In 2006 abundance varied from 2,19 to 526,08 th. ind/m3, and biomass from 0,01 to 4,12 g/m3. The lowest indices were found in spring, and maximal – in autumn in the Anankin Kut, at this dominated Rotatoria and Copepoda. In 2007 the lowest indices of abundance and biomass (0,48 th. ind/m3 and 0.01 g/m3) were registered in autumn in Potapiv Kut, maximal abundance (526,08 th. ind/m3) – in autumn in Potapiv Kut, and maximal biomass (2,64 g/m3) – in spring in Anankin Kut. The channels of the Sulina delta (Lopatna, Sulimanca and Suez channels). (In spring 2006 in the Sulimanca channel only qualitative zooplankton samples were taken). During the period of investigations 98 zooplankton species (taxa) were found, among them 56 species of Rotatoria, Copepoda – 14, Cladocera – 27 species, Dreissena veligers also were found. Maximal number of species was registered in the Sulimanca channel (76), in the Lopatna and Suez channels – respectively 72 and 64 species. During the period of investigations number of species in the separate water bodies varied from 9 to 41 – the lowest number was in spring 2006 in the Sulimanca channel, maximal – in spring 2006 in the Lopatna channel. In 2006 in the channels rotifers dominated in terms of abundance. The abundance values varied within wide limits – from 0,92 to 1899,33 th. ind/m3. The lowest indices were registered in summer in the Suez channel, maximal – in autumn in the Sulimanca channel. In 2006 rotifers also dominated in terms of biomass. The lowest values of biomass (0,01 g/m3) were registered in summer in the Suez channel (like those of abundance), and maximal (31,80 g/m3) – in autumn in the Sulimanca channel, at this mass development of the limnophilous rotifers Asplanchna priodonta (78% of the total biomass) and Brachionus diversicornis (16,5%) was observed. In 2007 quantitative indices of zooplankton varied within the following limits: abundance 84,70–2093,47 th. ind/m3, biomass 0,63–14,88 g/m3. The lowest values of the abundance and biomass were registered in summer in the Lopatna channel, maximal abundance and biomass were registered in autumn in the Sulimanca channel. It is worth to note mass development of Dreissena veligers in spring, especially in the Suez and Lopatna channels. 79

СHAPTER 2

Their number in the Suez channel was 100,0 th. ind/m3, and in the Lopatna channel – 73,33 th. ind/m3. In the Kiliya delta branches (Bystryi and Vostochnyi) over the period of investigations 67 zooplankton species were registered: Rotatoria – 28, Copepoda – 16, Cladocera – 22, as well as Dreissena veligers. In the Bystryi branch 51 species were registered, and in Vostochnyi – 52. Number of species in different samples varied from 3 to 34 – the lowest was registered in autumn 2006, and maximal – in spring 2006 in Vostochnyi. Quantitative indices in the Kiliya delta varied insignificantly. In 2006 abundance varied from 0,54 th. ind/m3 and biomass – from 0,01 g/m3 in autumn in the Vostochnyi branch to 26,00 th. ind/m3 and 0,51 g/m3 in spring in the Bystryi branch. In 2007 abundance varied within wider range – 0,66– 222.33 th. ind/m3. The lowest values were registered in autumn in Vostochnyi, and maximal – in spring in Bystryi. The lowest biomass (0,01 g/m3) was registered in summer in Vostochnyi, and maximal (4,11 g/m3) – in spring in Bystryi. In the Kiliya delta relatively high abundance of Dreissena veligers in spring were also registered. For example, in 2006 in Vostochnyi their abundance amounted to 0,82 th. ind/m3, and in 2007 in Bystryi – 175,00 th. ind/m3. Zooplankton species composition During the period of investigations zooplankton of the Danube delta was characterized by high species richness. Totally 148 species (and lower determined taxa) of three main taxonomic groups, belonging to 27 families and 63 genera. Among Rotatoria there were aquatic organisms of 16 families and 25 genera, the richest in species were families Brachionidae (16 species), Lecanidae (12), Trichocercidae (7), Synchaetidae (7), Asplanchnidae (6). Cladocera belonged to 7 families and 22 genera, among them the richest in species were Chydoridae and Daphniidae. Copepoda belonged to 4 families and 12 genera, among them family Cyclopidae includes most of all species. Rotifers included maximal number of species (taxa) – 79, Copepoda were presented by 23 species, Cladocera – by 45. Zebra mussel Dreissena veligers were also found in zooplankton of the investigated water bodies. On the whole, during the period of investigations in the Danube delta num80


ber of species and taxa, found in all seasons and in all water bodies (that is of 100% frequency of occurrence) was low, these were: Synchaeta sp., Asplanchna priodonta, Euchlanis dilatata, Brachionus quadridentatus, B. leydigii, B. calyciflorus, B. diversicornis, Keratella cochlearis, K. quadrata, rotifers of the order Bdelloidea, Copepoda Acanthocyclops vernalis, Thermocyclops oithonoides, T. crassus, Eurytemora velox, Harpacticoida gen. sp., Cladocera Diaphanosoma brachyurum, Moina micrura, Chydorus sphaericus, Pleuroxus aduncus, Bosmina longirostris. In 2006 in the Danube delta water bodies 124 species were found. Rotifers were the richest in species (51% of the total species number), among them most often occurred eurytopic and limnophilous species: Asplanchna priodonta, Brachionus calyciflorus, B. diversicornis, Euchlanis dilatata, Keratella quadrata, Polyarthra remata and rotifers of the order Bdelloida, Crustacea (Copepoda amounted 18% and Cladocera 30% of the total number of the found species). In all sites and during all period of investigation nauplii and juveniles (of different development stages) of Copepoda, as well as adult cyclops Acanthocyclops vernalis, Thermocyclops oithonoides, T. crassus were found. Among Cladocera more often occurred eurytopic pelagic species Alona rectangula, Chydorus sphaericus, Pleuroxus aduncus, Bosmina longirostris. In 2007 127 zooplankton species were registered. Portions of the main taxonomic groups were almost the same: Rotatoria – 52%, Copepoda – 16%, Cladocera – 31% and Dreissena veligers. Number of zooplankton species, occurred in all 2007 seasons was low. These were rotifers Asplanchna priodonta, Brachionus calyciflorus, B. diversicornis, rotifers of the order Bdelloidea, nauplii and juveniles of Copepoda, as well as adult cyclops Acanthocyclops vernalis, Thermocyclops oithonoides. Zooplankton of the Kiliya delta water bodies in 2006 comprised 93 species of three taxonomic groups, and during 2007 – 84 species (Fig. 2.2.20). In the investigated water bodies of the Sulina delta respectively 111 and 112 zooplankton species were registered. Ratio of the taxonomic groups was very similar in two years of investigations. In 2006 Dreissenа veligers were registered in minor quantity in all investigated water bodies of the Kiliya delta, and in the lakes of the Sulina delta – only in summer. It is worth to note their 81

СHAPTER 2

mass occurrence in the channels in spring 2007, where they were a part of the dominant complex. For example, in May 2007 their abundance amounted to 39% of total, and biomass – more than a half of total.

Fig. 2.2.20 Portions of the main zooplankton taxonomic groups, 2006–2007: 1 – Rotatoria, 2 – Copepoda, 3 – Cladocera, 4 – Vel. Dreissena.

During vegetation season decreasing of the species richness from spring to autumn was observed. At this ratio of the main taxonomic group was almost the same. Only in autumn portion of Crustacea species in zooplankton something decreased. It is worth to note that in the water bodies of the Kiliya delta during all seasons lesser species number was registered, then in the Sulina delta water bodies. At this rotifers prevailed in terms of species number in both sections. Domination of rotifers were extremely displayed in zooplankton of running biotopes, e. g. Kiliya delta arms (up to 67% of total species number) and in channels of the Sulina delta (up to 70%). Zooplankton quantitative characteristic. Seasonal dynamics of the zooplankton quantitative indices in the investigated water bodies of the Danube delta had some peculiarities. In 2006 average abundance and biomass values of the arms and lakes of the Kiliya delta gradually increased from spring to autumn (Fig. 2.2.21). On the whole, 82


growth of values over vegetation period occurred due to the mass develop ment of nauplii larvae and juveniles of Copepoda, as well as some adult Cyclops, like Acanthocyclops vernalis, Thermocyclops oithonoides. At this average abundance and biomass values of other taxonomic groups decreased. Zooplankton quantitative indices in 2007 varied within wide limits. In this year zooplankton development was character by high quantitative values in spring and their further sharp decrease.

Fig. 2.2.21 Seasonal dynamics of zooplankton quantitative indices, 2006–2007

For zooplankton of the lakes and channels of Sulina delta in 2006 growth of the quantitative indices to the autumn was peculiar. At this role of rotifers of the limnophilous complex increased during vegetation period, and role of Cladocera, especially in terms of biomass, considerably decreased to autumn. During all seasons dominated rotifers Asplanchna priodonta, Brachionus calyciflorus, B. diversicornis, nauplii and juvenile Copepoda, as well as some Cladocera – Ceriodaphnia pulchella, Bosmina longirostris, Chydorus 83

СHAPTER 2

sphaericus, Eurycercus lamellatus. More smoothed quantitative indices (especially abundance) were registered in 2007. Zooplankton biomass, as during previous year, gradually increased from spring to autumn. Dominated rotifers Asplanchna priodonta, Brachionus diversicornis, in spring – Filinia longiseta limnetica, and also Cladocera – Diaphanosoma brachyurum It is also worth to note, that level of the quantitative indices of the Sulina delta water bodies is practically by order of magnitude higher than those of the Kiliya delta. On the whole zooplankton of the lakes and arms of the Kiliya delta can be characterized as “Copepoda–Rotatoria”, and zooplankton of the Sulina delta – as “Rotatoria–Cladocera”. Dynamics of zooplankton development in the lakes and branches of the Kiliya delta, lakes and channels of the Sulina delta has some peculiarities (see Fig. 2.2.20, 2.2.21). In the Kiliya delta there was clear distinction in the quantitative dynamics of the almost closed lakes and running arms. The most diverse and abundant was zooplankton in the lakes. Dominated complex of the planktonic fauna was presented mainly by eurytopic and limnophilous species, at this planktonic Crustacea prevailed in terms of quantitative indices. Maximal number of species was registered in spring in the branches, and in summer and autumn mainly in the water bodies of the Kiliya delta (Fig. 2.2.22). Abundance and biomass varied within close limits, with some exceptions. For example, in Anankin Kut abundance varied from 2 to 712 th. ind/m3, and biomass – from 0,01 to 4,2 g/m3 (Fig. 2.2.23, 2.22.24). Over the vegeta tion period in the lakes of the Kiliya delta dominated rotifers Asplanchna priodonta, Brachionus calyciflorus, Platyias quadricornis, Cyclops Acanthocyclops vernalis, Cladocera Chydorus sphaericus, and in arms prevailed the nauplii and juvenile Cyclopoida. Higher quantitative indices were registered in autumn 2006 in the lakes, and in spring 2007 in all investigated sites of the Kiliya delta. Stably high quantitative indices were peculiar for the lakes and channels of Sulina delta. Common regularity for all channels was decrease of the species richness from spring to summer and its minor increase in autumn. In the lakes maximal number of species was registered in summer 2006 and in 84


spring 2007 (see Fig. 2.2.22). Abundance and biomass increased, and, as a rule, reached maximal values in autumn (see Fig. 2.2.23, 2.2.24), because of mass development of limnophilous Cladocera: Sida crystallina, Diaphanosoma brachyurum, Pleuroxus aduncus, Acroperus harpae.

Fig. 2.2.22 Seasonal dynamics of zooplankton species richness 2006–2007

85

СHAPTER 2

Fig. 2.2.23 Seasonal dynamics of zooplankton abundance, 2006–2007

The Shannon-Wiener diversity indices for the period of study. Mini mal values of the species diversity, calculated on zooplankton abundance, were registered in spring 2006 in the lakes Matita (0,83 bit/ind) and Merhei (0,99 bit/ind), and during 2007 also in spring in the Bystryi branch (1,32), Vostochnyi branch (1,26) and the Potapiv Kut lagoon (1,12 bit/ind). High species diversity indices were peculiar for zooplankton in the Sulina delta 86


lakes in autumn 2006 (H/N maximal values 2,94 bit/ind). In summer these indices were moderate. In 2007 maximal index values were marked in spring in the Merhei lake (3,31 bit/ind) and in Vostochnyi branch (3,33 bit/ind). Mini mal indices, calculated on zooplankton biomass, were registered in autumn 2006 (in the Sulimanca channel – 1,04 bit/g), and maximal – in spring 2006 in the Kiliya water bodies (in the Anankin Kut lake – 3,42 bit/g), and in spring 2007– in the lakes of the Sulina delta (in the Merhei lake – 3,56 bit/g).

Fig. 2.2.24 Seasonal dynamics of the zooplankton biomass, 2006–2007

87

СHAPTER 2

2.2.5. PHYTOPHILOUS FAUNA. Lakes of the Sulina delta. Matita lake. The phytophilous complexes included 78 species of the aquatic invertebrates, of them maximal species number belonged to Chironomidae larvae (18 species). Total species richness in two years was close (58 species in 2006, 52 – in 2007). Maximal species number was registered in summer 2006 (45), and minimum (12) – in autumn 2007. Average abundance and biomass of the phytophilous invertebrates were 4,64 th. ind/kg and 5,72 g/kg, but these indices varied within wide limits. Maximal abundance was registered in spring 2006 (12,45 th. ind/kg) and maximal biomass in spring 2007 (14,77 g/kg). The lowest indices were in autumn 2007 (0.12 th. ind/kg and 0,75 g/kg). Chironomidae larvae dominated in terms of abundance (55%), and Gastropoda and Odonata larvae domi nated in terms of biomass (19% each). Merhei lake. Total species number (101) was maximal among all the investigated ecosystems. The richest in species were Chironomidae larvae, Oligochaeta and Gastropoda (respectively 25, 15 and 14 species). In 2007 the species number somewhat decreased (to 67) as compared with 2006 (74). Maximal species number was registered in spring 2007 (49) and minimal – in autumn 2007 (19). Average abundance and biomass values amounted to 7,68 th. ind/kg and 10,77 g/kg; maximal highest abundance was registered in autumn 2006 (16,71 th. ind/kg) and biomass in spring 2006 (35,12 g/kg), minimal were registered in autumn 2007 (0,64 th. ind/kg and 0,51 g/kg). Oligochaeta dominated in terms of abundance (48%), Odonata larvae and Gastropoda dominated in terms of biomass (20% each). Small Merhei lake. In this lake 74 invertebrate species were identified: 39 species in 2006, and 61 in 2007. Maximal species number was registered in spring 2007 (31) and minimal – in autumn 2007 (15). The richest species were Chironomidae larvae (20), Oligochaeta (9) and Trichoptera larvae (8). Average abundance and biomass were 7,68 th. ind/kg and 2,83 g/kg. 88


Maximal abundance was registered in spring 2006 (8,70 th. ind/kg) and maximal biomass – in summer 2006 (7,27 g/kg). Minimal abundance was registered in autumn 2006 (0,43 th. ind/kg) and minimal biomass – in autumn 2007 (0,29 g/kg). Oligochaeta dominated in terms of abundance (48%), Gammaridae dominated in terms of biomass (24%). So, totally in the Sulina delta lakes 126 species of the phytophilous invertebrates were found. In 2006 species number exceeded those in 2007 (respectively 100 and 85 species). During the investigated period the taxonomic composition of the phytophilous fauna of these ecosystems exhibited many common features: Chironomidae larvae dominated in species number, Gammaridae dominated in terms of biomass. In Merhei and Small Merhei lakes Oligochaeta dominated in terms of abundance, and in Matita lake Chironomidae larvae were dominant. Channels of the Sulina delta. Lopatna channel. In this ecosystem 80 species were identified: 66 in 2006 and 36 in 2007. Chironomidae larvae comprised maximal species number (18), they were followed by Oligochaeta (12 species). The maximal species number was registered in spring 2006 (32 species), and minimal – in summer 2007 (15 species). Average abundance and biomass in this water course were 11,69 th. ind/ kg and 9.38 g/kg, maximal in spring 2007 (43,13 th. ind/kg and 29,55 g/kg), minimum – in autumn 2007 (1,41 th. ind/kg and 1,40 g/kg). Chironomidae larvae dominated both in terms of abundance (56% of total) and biomass (50% of total). Suez channel. In this ecosystem 62 species were registered, 50 in 2006 and 30 in 2007. The most diverse were Chironomidae larvae (15 species), followed by Oligochaeta (7), maximal species number was in autumn 2006 (29) and minimal – in autumn 2007 (8). Average abundance and biomass were 5,13 th. ind/kg and 20,80 g/kg, maximal abundance were registered in autumn 2006 (19,85 th. ind/kg) and maximal biomass – in summer 2006 (68,55 g/kg); minimal abundance and biomass were registered in autumn 2007 (0,43 th. ind/kg and 0,07 g/kg). Chironomidae larvae and Oligochaeta dominated in terms of abundance 89

СHAPTER 2

(each 33% of the total), Hirudinea (29%) and Gastropoda (28%) dominated in terms of biomass. Sulimanca channel. In this ecosystem 45 species were recorded (36 in 2006, 24 in 2007). Maximal species number belonged to Chironomidae larvae (15), followed by Oligochaeta (7); maximal species number was registered in summer 2006 (29) and minimal – in summer 2007 (only 8). Average abundance and biomass were 9,43 th. ind/kg and 8,04 g/kg; maximal abundance was registered in autumn 2006 (15,9 th. ind/kg) and maximal biomass – in summer 2006 (21,57 g/kg). Minimal abundance and biomass were registered in summer 2007 (0,42 th. ind/kg and 0,19 g/kg). Oligochaeta dominated in terms of abundance (44%) and Odonata larvae in terms of biomass (32%). So, totally in the channels 106 species of phytophilous invertebrates were found. The peculiar feature was notable diversity of Chironomidae larvae (totally 26 species). Gastropoda, which, as a rule, are quite diverse in the phytophilous complexes, comprised minor species number (in the Sulimanca channel they were absent). In Sulimanca channel portion of Chironomidae larvae was maximal, but all other Diptera were absent. In Suez channel, portion of Crustacea was maximal, but the number of Oligochaeta species was minor. In the Lopatna channel portion of Crustacea species was low, but maximal number of Diptera species. On general, in 2006 species richness was higher than in 2007. Water bodies of Kiliya delta Anankin Kut lake. 66 species of phytophilous invertebrates were found; species number in two years did not was close – 48 in 2006 and 45 in 2007. The most diverse were Chironomidae larvae (18), followed by Oligochaeta (13). Number of Gastropoda species was low (only 4). Maximal species number was registered in summer 2006 (25) and minimal (13) – in autumn 2006. Total abundance and biomass of the phytophilous invertebrates varied within narrow limits. The average values were 0,84 th.ind/kg and 0,82 g/kg; maximal abundance and biomass were registered in spring 2007 (2,51 th. ind/kg and 1/46 g/kg), minimal abundance – in autumn 2007 (0,27 th. ind/kg and minimal biomass – in spring 2007 (0,25 g/kg). Oligochaeta dominated in 90


terms of abundance (46%), Hirudinea (16%) and Odonata larvae (14%) dominated in terms of biomass. Potapiv Kut lagoon. In this ecosystem 79 species were recorded: 58 in 2006 and 46 in 2007. The most diverse were Chironomidae larvae (16), Oligochaeta (12) and Gastropoda (9 species); maximal species number was registered in autumn 2006 (30) and minimal – in spring and autumn 2007 (17). Total abundance and biomass of the phytophilous invertebrates varied within wide limits. The average values during the investigated period were 3,11 th. ind/kg and 4,84 g/kg, maximal were registered in spring 2006 (5,09 th. ind/kg and 11,28 g/kg) and minimal – in autumn 2007 (2,94 th. ind/kg and 0,93 g/kg). Oligochaeta dominated in terms of abundance (45% of total) and Gastropoda in terms of biomass (36%). Deliukiv Kut lagoon. Phytophilous fauna of this lake comprised 76 species: 61 species were found in 2006, and 47 – in 2007. The most diverse were Chironomidae larvae and Oligochaeta (14 species each) followed by Gastropoda (10 species); maximal species number was registered in autumn 2006 (35) and minimal in spring 2006 (16 species). The average abundance and biomass in this water body were 2,39 th. ind/ kg and 1,89 g/kg. maximal abundance and biomass were registered in spring 2007 (5,39 th. ind/kg) and in autumn 2006 (2,62 g/kg), minimal abundance was registered in summer 2006 (0,67 th. ind/kg) and biomass – in spring 2006 (1,03 g/kg). Oligochaeta dominated in terms of abundance (49% of total) and Gastropoda in terms of biomass (34% of total). So, over investigation period the phytophilous fauna of the Kiliya delta water bodies comprised 125 species; species number was higher in the year with high water level (2006) as compared with the year with low water level (2007): respectively 97 and 84. Potapiv Kut and Deliukiv Kut lagoons had more similar composition: considerable development of snails Gastropoda was noticed, whereas in Anankin Kut lake this group was almost absent. Branches of the Kiliya delta. Bystryi branch. 49 species of phytophilous invertebrates were identified in two years: 37 in 2006 and 30 – in 2007. The most diverse were Oligochaeta 91

СHAPTER 2

and Gammaridae (7 species each); maximal species number (23) was registered in autumn 2006 and minimal (10) in autumn 2007. Average abundance and biomass of phytophilous invertebrates were 4,00 th. ind/kg and 29,09 g/kg; maximal abundance and biomass were registered in autumn 2006 (12,34 th. ind/kg and 120,57 g/kg), minimal were recorded in autumn 2007 (0,53 th. ind/kg and 0,37 g/kg). Chironomidae larvae dominated in terms of abundance (31% of total) and Bivalvia in terms of biomass (83% of total). Vostochnyi branch. 79 species of invertebrates were recorded: 61 species in 2006 and 43 species in 2007. The most diverse were Chironomidae larvae (17), Gastropoda (15) and Oligochaeta (10); maximal species number (42) was registered in summer 2007, and minimal – in autumn 2006 and in spring 2007 (19 species). The average abundance and biomass of the phytophilous invertebrates were 2,12 th. ind/kg and 13,06 g/kg; maximal abundance and biomass were registered in summer 2006 (4,79 th. ind/kg and 24,16 g/kg), minimal abundance – in autumn 2007 (0,51 th. ind/kg) and biomass – in spring 2006 (0,74 g/kg). Corophiidae dominated in terms of abundance (31 % of total), Bivalvia in terms of biomass (55 % of total). So, totally in the water courses of Kiliya delta 93 species of the phytophilous invertebrates were found, though portions of dominant taxa were different. Common feature for both arms was the considerable amount of mollusks, both Bivalvia and Gastropoda, as well as Crustacea (Corophiidae and Gammaridae), which dominated in certain seasons. In 2007, at low water level, the species richness decreased, especially in the Vostochyi branch. Phytophilous complex species composition Over the years 2006–2007 in the investigated ecosystems of the Danube delta 184 species of the phytophilous complex were recorded. Comparison within Romanian part (old delta) and Ukrainian part (young delta) showed equal number of species in both sides: 144. The most diverse were Chironomidae larvae (42 species, 36 in the old and 30 in the young delta). Considerable number of species were registered also of Gastropoda (21) and Oligochaeta (19). On both sides of the delta the 92


following groups were found: Coleoptera – 13 species; Odonata larvae – 12; Trichoptera larvae – 11, Gammaridae – 11; Hirudinea – 10 species, Heterop tera – 8, Corophiidae – 5, Ceratopogonidae larvae – 4; Bryozoa, Bivalvia, Ephydridae larvae – 3 species each; Isopoda, Mysidacea, Ephemeroptera larvae and Stratiomiidae – 2 species each. Cumacea and Porifera included 1 species each. Other organisms were not determined to the species level. Comparison of the species composition showed that in the old delta more Trichoptera and Chironomidae larvae were found, whereas in the younger delta Coleoptera and Gammaridae were more frequent. For the first time in the Ukrainian section of the Danube River the mussel Dreissena bugensis Andr. was found attached on Butomus umbellatus L., in the mouth section of Vostochnyi branch. Among the phytophilous fauna 9 species occurred with 100% frequency: Nais barbata O. F. Muller, Stylaria lacustris (Linnaeus), Pisciola geometra (Linne), Ischnura elegans (van der Linden), Caenis horaria (Linne), Cladotanytarsus mancus (Walker), Cricotopus sylvestris (F.), Dikerotendipes nervosus (Staeger), Psectrocladius sordidellus (Zetterstedt). Minimal frequency was recorded for Hirudo medicinalis (Linne), which was found only in the Suez channel, Paramysis intermedia (Cherniavsky) (Matita lake) and Pseudocuma cercaroides G.O.Sars (Small Merhei lake), Agraylea multipunctata Curtis and Cheumatopsyche lepida Wallengren larvae (Bystryi branch), Aeschna juncea (Linne) larvae (Deliukiv lagoon), Aeschna viridis (Linne) larvae (Potapiv Kut lagoon), Cordulia aeneaturfosa Forster (Merhei lake) and Sympetrum flaveolum (Linne) (Lopatna channel). Comparison of the taxa spectra of the phytophilous complexes (Fig. 2.2.25) showed that Insecta prevailed in terms of species number in all the investigated water ecosystems, though in the arms of the young delta and in Lopatna channel their portion was slightly lower than in other water bodies. In the lakes of the Kiliya delta (Anankin and Deliukiv) portions of Oligo chaeta were maximal (respectively 27 and 25%), whereas their minimal portion was found in the Matita lake (17%). Maximal percentage of mollusks species was found in the Vostochnyi branch (22%) and minimal – in the 93

СHAPTER 2

Anankin lake (only 6%). Crustacea reached considerable portion only in the Bystryi branch (24%) and Suez channel (18%).

Fig. 2.2.25 Taxonomic composition of the phytophilic fauna of the Danube Delta

94


So, during the studied period the taxonomic composition of the phytophilous complexes of the old delta were to the smaller degree dependent on the ecosystem’s type (there were many common features within channels and lakes), than in the young delta, where higher distinction within the ecosystem types was found. Quantitative indices. Maximal average abundance was found in the Lopatna channel (11,69 th. ind/kg) and maximal average biomass – in Bystryi branch (29,09 g/kg); minimal averages of abundance and biomass were registered in the freshwater Anankin Kut lake (0,84 th. ind/kg and 0,82 g/kg) (Fig. 2.2.26, 2.2.27). Generally, the average abundance was lower in the ecosystems of the young delta, than in the old delta. Biomass values varied in more narrow limits than the abundance.

Fig. 2.2.26. Total abundance (А) and biomass (B) of the phytophilous invertebrates in the investigated water courses

95

СHAPTER 2

Analysis of the annual averages of abundance and biomass of the phytophilous complexes in the investigated ecosystems showed that in 2006 these indices were higher in almost all of them. (except Lopatna channel). In both years Chironomidae larvae and Oligochaeta dominated in terms of abun dance; in Bystryi and Vostochnyi branches, their dominance was shared with Corophiidae also. In terms of biomass, in Kiliya delta arms dominated Gastropoda and Bivalvia, whereas in the ecosystems of the old delta in 2006 dominated Odonata larvae and in 2007 – Gammaridae or Chironomidae larvae.

Fig. 2.2.27 Total abundance (А) and biomass (B) of the phytophilous invertebrates in the investigated water bodies

In the lakes of the Sulina delta and in Potapiv Kut lagoon the annual ave rage abundance of phytophilous invertebrates was higher in 2006 than in 2007 (Fig. 2.2.26); Chironomidae larvae and Oligochaeta were dominant, as in channels. The highest annual average abundance in both years was registered in Merhei lake. In the lakes Merhei, Small Merhei, and Potapiv 96


lagoon the biomass was higher in 2006 than in 2007, as opposed to other ecosystems. In the water bodies of the Sulina delta, change of the dominant groups occurred in two years of study: in 2006 Chironomidae larvae dominated in Matita lake and Odonata larvae in Merhei lake, in 2007 Gastropoda dominated in both lakes; in Small Merhei, Gastropoda dominated in 2006, while in 2007 they were replaced by Gammaridae. In the water bodies of the Kiliya delta the dominance was kept for the whole duration of study: e.g. Anankin Kut lake was dominated by Hirudinea, Potapiv Kut and Deliukiv Kut lagoons by Gastropoda. The highest annual average biomass in 2006 was registered in the Merhei lake, and in 2007 it was recorded in the Matita lake; the lowest annual ave rage was found in the Anankin Kut lake in both years of investigation. Species diversity of the phytophilous complexes The Shannon diversity index shows minor variations of species diversity within the different ecosystems (Fig. 2.2.28).

Fig. 2.2.28 The Shannon diversity index of the phytophilous complexes of Danube delta.

97

СHAPTER 2

Maximal was found in the Anankin Kut lake (3,18 bit/ind) due to its constantly high values during the period of investigation. High diversity of the phytophilous fauna was also registered in the Lopatna channel (3,04 bit/ind), due to the minor variations over the vegetation season in 2006. Minimal average value of the index calculated in the Bystryi branch, due to the low values recorded in both years (respectively 2,42 and 2,29 bit/ind). The analysis of the Shannon index dynamics showed that species diversity was higher in 2006 in almost all the investigated ecosystems (except Merhei and Anankin Kut lakes and Deliukiv Kut lagoon).

2.2.6. MACROZOOBENTHOS Lakes of the Sulina delta. During the investigated period 80 species of benthic invertebrates of 18 groups were found: Matita lake – 51, Merhei lake – 54, Small Merhei lake – 31. The most diverse were Chironomidae larvae (28), followed by Oligochaeta (13), Gastropoda (8), Gammaridae (6), Trichoptera (5), Hirudinea (4), Bivalvia (3), Odonata (2) and Ephemeroptera larvae (2). One species of Cumacea, Pseudocuma cercaroides (G. O. Sars) and one species of Isopoda, Asellus aquaticus L were also found; other groups were not determined to the species level. In Sulina delta lakes Acariformes and Chironomidae larvae were dominant in terms of abundance; Acariformes abundance ranged within 417– 17500 ind/m2, maximal was registered in autumn 2006 in Small Merhei lake. Chironomidae abundance varied within 750–11583 ind/m2, maximal was registered in Matita lake in spring. Bivalvia and Gastropoda dominated in 2006 in terms of biomass. Biomass of Bivalvia varied within 1,83–242,50 g/m2; maximal was reached in Small Merhei lake due to the development of Dreissena polymorpha (Pallas). Gastropoda’s biomass ranged within 2,33–225,42 g/m2; maximal was found also in Small Merhei lake due to development of the snail Viviparus viviparus (Linne). In 2007 Chironomidae larvae were dominant in terms of abundance, 98


ranging within 933–10247 ind/m2; maximal were registered in Matita lake due to the development of Propsilocerus orielicus (Thsher.) and Fleuria lacustris (Kiffer). Gastropoda were dominant in terms biomass in 2007, ranging within 7,92–313,74 g/m2; maximal was registered in Matita lake due to the development of the snails Viviparus viviparus (Linne). Water bodies of Kiliya delta. 56 species of benthic invertebrates of 13 groups were identified in the investigated water bodies of Kiliya delta: Potapiv Kut lagoon–- 31, Deliukiv Kut lagoon – 27, Anankin Kut lake – 11. The most diverse were Chironomidae larvae (21 species), followed by Oligochaeta (10), Gastropoda (10), Hirudinea (2), Bivalvia (2), Odonata (2) and Heteroptera (2). One species of Gammaridae (Pontogammarus robustoides (Sars) and one species of Corophiidae (Corophium volutator (Pallas) were also found; Nematoda, Ceratopogonidae and Coleoptera groups were not determined to the species level. Oligochaeta and Chironomidae larvae were dominant in terms of abundance during the whole period. In 2006, Oligochaeta abundance ranged within 600–9800 ind/m2 and in 2007 – within 600–13400 ind/m2; maximal abundances were registered in Deliukiv Kut and Potapiv Kut lagoons in autumn. The abundance of Chironomidae larvae in 2006 ranged within 100– 4800 ind/m2 and 300–8800 ind/m2 in 2007; maximal values were recorded in Potapiv Kut lagoon in summer 2006 and in spring 2007. In 2006, Gastropoda dominated in biomass, their values ranging within 19,00–35,70 g/m2; maximal values were registered in summer in Deliukiv Kut lagoon. In 2007 Bivalvia mussels dominated in terms of biomass, ranging within 14,02– 309,80 g/m2; maximal values were registered in spring in Potapiv Kut lagoon due to the development of the mussel Anodonta piscinalis (Nilsson). Channels of the Sulina delta. 78 species of the benthic invertebrates of 19 groups were found in the channels of the Sulina delta during the investigated period: Sulimanca – 49, Lopatna – 23, Suez – 36. The most diverse were Chironomidae larvae (23 species), followed by Oligochaeta (14), Gastropoda (7), Hirudinea (5), Bivalvia (5), Trichoptera (5), Odonata (3), Mysidacea (1 – Limnomysis benedeni Czerniavsky), Cumacea (1 – Pseudocuma laevis (G. O. Sars), Isopoda (1 – Asellus aquaticus L.), and Ephemeroptera (1 – Caenis 99

СHAPTER 2

horaria (Linne)). Acariformes, Hydrozoa, Nematoda, Ceratopogonidae, Lepidoptera and Coleoptera were not determined to the species level. In 2006 Acariformes were dominant in terms of abundance; in Sulimanca channel they reached 46000 ind/m2, followed by Oligochaeta (250– 5750 ind/m2). Maximal was registered in summer in Sulimanca channel. In 2007 Oligochaeta and Chironomidae larvae were dominant in terms of abundance, their values ranging respectively within 200–29 216 ind/m2 and 250–9750 ind/m2; maximal abundance of Oligochaeta was recorded in spring in Suez channel, the highest abundance of Chironomidae was recorded in Sulimanca channel in the same period. Bivalvia and Gastropoda dominated in terms of biomass; in 2006 the biomass of these groups ranged respectively within 21,23–535,00 g/m2 and 0,70–355,00 g/m2, and in 2007 within 510,17–5400,00 g/m2 and 125,00– 500,00 g/m2. In 2006 maximal values of Bivalvia were registered in summer in Sulimanca channel due to the mussel D. polymorpha (Pallas); maximal value of Gastropoda was found in the same period in the Suez channel due to the snail V. viviparus. Maximal biomass value of Bivalvia in 2007 was registered in autumn in Sulimanca channel due to the mussel Unio pictorum (Linne), and maximal biomass of Gastropoda was recorded in summer in the Suez channel. Branches of the Kiliya delta. 64 species of the benthic invertebrates of 14 taxonomic groups were found during the investigation period: in Bystryi branch – 42 and in Vostochnyi branch – 47. The most diverse were Chironomidae larvae (14), followed by Gastropoda (13), Oligochaeta (12), Gammaridae (8), Corophiidae (4), Polychaeta (2), Bivalvia (2), Hirudinea (2), Heteroptera (2), Odonata (1), Trichoptera (1) and Isopoda (1); Acariformes and Nematoda were not determined to the species level. In 2006 the dominant group in abundance was Oligochaeta, ranging within 1000–7900 ind/m2; maximal was registered in summer in Bystryi channel. Gastropoda and Bivalvia dominated in terms of biomass, ranging respectively within 0,30–28,60 g/m2 and 8,00–21,00 g/m2. The highest biomass of both groups was registered in autumn in Bystryi branch. In 2007 Oligochaeta and Corophiidae were dominant in terms of 100


abundance, the values ranging respectively within 1100–14400 ind/m2 and 300–16500 ind/m2; maximal values of both groups were registered in Vostochnyi branch. Gastropoda were dominant in terms of biomass, their values ranging within 11,57–74,83 g/m2; maximal was reached in summer in the Vostochnyi branch, due to Fagotia esperi (Ferussae). Species composition Over period of investigation in the considered ecosystems 146 species of benthic invertebrates were recorded (108 in 2006, 100 in 2007). 110 species were found in the ecosystems of Sulina delta: 78 in the channels, 80 in the lakes, whereas in the younger delta 88 species were found: 64 in the arms and 56 in lakes and lagoons. In 2006 maximal species number was registered in Merhei lake (42), and minimal in Anankin Kut lake (11). In 2007 maximal number of species was registered in Bystryi branch (35), and minimal – in Lopatna channel (4 species). The presence of the species Gmelina pusilla Sars (Crustacea, Amphipoda, Gammaridae) in the lakes of the Sulina delta is considered very important, taking into account the environmental protection, because this species is included in the Red Book of Ukraine. The presence of the species Rhynchelmis limnosella Hoffmeister (Oligochaeta), found only in Suez channel, is also considered important as this species inhabits different types of water bodies (rivers, lakes, springs, wetlands) and prefers shaded places among closed vegetations, on silted soils. Some authors consider this species as glacial relict [CHEKANOVSKAYA 1962]. The following species inhabited only the certain water bodies: in Sulimanca channel: Hydrozoa, Oligochaeta – Psammoryctides albicola (Michaelsen) and Peloscolex velutinus (Grube), Cumacea – Pseudocuma laevis (G.O. Sars), Gastropoda – Unio pictorum (Linne), Chironomidae – Psectrocladius dilatatus van der Wulp, Odonata – Coenagrion pulchellum (van der Linden), Trichoptera – Polycentropus flavomaculatus Pictet, Hydropsyche ornatula (Mc. lachlan), Coleoptera, Lepidoptera; in Lopatna channel: Oligochaeta – Stylaria lacustris (Linnaeus), Gastropoda – Acroloxus lacustris (L.), Odonata – Platycnemis pennipes Pallas; 101

СHAPTER 2

in Suez channel: Oligochaeta – Psammoryctides barbatus (Grube), Rhynchelmis limnosella Hoffmeister, Eiseniella tetraedra (Savigni), Hirudinea – Batracobdella paludosa (Carena) and Helobdella stagnalis (L.), Mysidacea – Limnomysis benedeni Czerniavsky; in Matita lake: Oligochaeta – Nais pseudoptusa Piguet, Brachiobdella sp., Hirudinea – Pisciola fasciata (Linne), Chironomidae – Psectrocladius zetterstedti (Zetterstedt), Trichoptera – Orthotrichia tetensii Kolbe; in Merhei lake: Arachnida, Bivalvia – Anodonta sp., Trichoptera – Mystacides longicornis (Linne), Ephemeroptera – Caenis robusta (Eaton), larvae of Diptera Ephidridae sp., Chaoborus sp.; in Small Merhei lake: Cumacea – Pseudocuma caercaroides (G.O. Sars), Gammaridae – Chaetogammarus ischus (Stebbing), Trichoptera – Neureclipsis bicolor L.; in Bystryi branch: Gammaridae – Pontogammarus maeoticus (Sowinsky), Pontogammarus obesus (G. O. Sars), Stenogammarus macrurus (G. O. Sars), Stenogammarus carausui (Derzhavin et Pjat.), Stenogammarus similis (G. O. Sars), Gastropoda – Physa fontinalis (Linne), Valvata pulhella Studer, Heteroptera – Sigara falleni (Fieber); in Vostochnyi branch: Oligochaeta – Potamothrix moldaviensis Vejdovsky et Mrazek, Gastropoda – Bithynia leachi (Steppard), Valvata cristata (O.F. Muller); in Potapiv Kut lagoon: Gastropoda – Anisus vortex (Linne), Lymnaea ovata (Draparnaud), Odonata – Lestes sp., Ephemeroptera – Arthroplea congener Bengston; in Deliukiv Kut lagoon: Oligochaeta – Potamothrix hammoniensis (Michaelsen), Chironomidae – Polypedilium scalaenum (Schrank), Heteroptera – Ilyocoris cimicoides (Linne). In the Anankin Kut lake occurred mainly cosmopolite and ubiquitous species. The taxonomic composition of the investigated ecosystems comprised 26 groups; maximal number was registered in Sulimanca channel (16), and minimal in Anankin Kut lake (6). Chironomidae larvae and Oligochaeta dominated in almost all the investigated ecosystems (Fig. 2.2.29). 102


In the investigated ecosystems, only two species were characterized by 100% occurrence frequency: Tubifex tubifex (O. F. Muller) and Chironomus plumosus (L.). The following species can be considered as common dominant: Limnodrilus sp., Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri (Claparede) (frequency of occurrence 91%), Nematoda sp., (82%), Valvata piscinalis (O. F. Muller), Dreissena polymorpha (Pallas), Propsilocerus orielicus (Thsher.), Psectrocladius psilopterus (van der Wulp) (73%), Bithinia tentaculata (Linne), Viviparus viviparus (Linne), Parachironomus pararostatus (Lenz), Fleuria lacustris (Kiffer), Glyptotendipes gripekoveni (Kieffer), Polypedilum convictum (Walker), Limnodrilus claparedeanus (Ratzel), Erpobdella octoculata (Linne), Procladius ferrugineus (Kiffer), Ceratopogonidae sp. (64–55%); occurrence frequency of other species was below 50%. Quantitative indices Macrozoobenthos quantitative indices of the two sides of the Danube delta varied within wide limits. Maximal annual average abundance and biomass in channels and arms was registered in Sulimanca channel; maximal abundance was found in autumn 2006 (53000 ind/m2), and maximal biomass – in summer 2006 (1972,75 g/m2). Minimal for the whole period were registered in Lopatna channel: in spring 2007 (7000 ind/m2), and in summer 2006 (264,59 g/m2) (Fig. 2.2.30, 2.2.31). Seasonal dynamics of the macrozoobenthos quantitative indices in 2006 was similar in almost all the investigated ecosystems, maximal were registered in summer. In 2007 seasonal dynamics was somewhat other: maximum in spring, followed by gradual decrease in summer and autumn. Maximal quantitative indices in lakes were registered in Small Merhei lake: abundance in autumn 2006 (24000 ind/m2) and biomass in summer 2006 (391,25 g/m2), followed by Potapiv lagoon: maximal abundance and biomass were recorded in spring 2007 (18000 ind/m2 and 391,99 g/m2). Minimal quantitative indices were found in Anankin Kut lake: maximal abundance was registered in spring 2006 (3133 ind/m2) and biomass in summer 2007 (6,50 g/m2) (Fig. 2.2.29). 103

СHAPTER 2

Fig. 2.2.29. Taxonomic composition of macrozoobenthos in the investigated water bodies and watercourses.

104


Fig. 2.2.30 Seasonal dynamics of the macrozoobenthos abundance and biomass in the investigated water courses

Fig. 2.2.31 Seasonal dynamics of macrozoobenthos abundance and biomass in the investigated water bodies.

Species diversity indices Similar to other biotic groups, macrozoobenthos diversity was assessed using the Shannon-Wiener index. Maximal value of the Shannon index was 105

СHAPTER 2

registered in spring 2007 in Sulimanca channel (3,77 bit/ind), and the lowest in Bystryi branch in spring 2006. Maximal annual average value of the Shannon index was found in Sulimanca channel (2,71 bit/ind) and the lowest in Small Merhei lake (1,37 bit/ind).

2.3. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE DANUBE DELTA AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS STATUS 2.3.1. Species composition, similarity and distinction. Total species composition of the found organisms amounts to 895 lowest determined taxa (see Annex “Species list”), among them 745 were registered in the Sulina delta (“old delta”), and 603 – in the Kiliya delta (“young delta”) of the Danube river (Fig. 2.3.1). In both parts of the delta total species number was more in the lakes, than in the water courses (channels, arms). In all water bodies’ types, as well as in the whole delta, phytoplankton was the richest in species, followed by the macrofauna, something less – zooplankton, and aquatic macrophytes were presented by the least species number. Reducing of the total species number was conditioned by the reducing of the phyto- and zooplankton species number, but not those of the macrofauna. Structure of the total species richness of the biotic complexes of the studied water bodies is presented in Figure 2.3.2. Maximal species number was registered in the Merhei lake, and minimal in the Bystryi branch On the whole lakes and channels of the Sulina delta were more rich in species than water bodies of the Kiliya delta. Ratio of the biotic groups in terms of the species richness is presented in the Figure 2.3.3. Species richness of the both phyto- and zooplankton in all lakes and channels of the Sulina delta was more, than in the arms and lakes of the Kiliya delta. For the macrofauna such dependence was not noted. Lakes 106


Matita and Merhei were peculiar with the most values of the species richness of all studied biotic complexes. At that in the Matita lake maximal number of the phytoplankton species was registered, and in the Merhei lake – those for zooplankton and macrofauna. Also maximal number of the aquatic macrophytes species (19) was registered in these water bodies. In the water bodies of the Kiliya delta lower values of the species richness were registered, both total and of the separate biotic groups. Minimal number of the macrofauna species was registered in the Anankin Kut lake, of zooplankton – in the Bystryi arm, of phytoplankton – in the Vostochnyi arm. At that in the Sulimanka channel only 3 aquatic macrophytes’ species were registered.

Fig. 2.3.1 Species richness of the different type water bodies of the Danube delta

Relative share of the invertebrate macrofauna was similar in all lakes and channels, at that in the arms it was more, than in the lakes. Ratio of zooplankton and phytoplankton species was similar in all investigated 107

СHAPTER 2

water bodies (1:2), except Anankin Kut lake and Potapiv Kut lagoon where number of phytoplankton species was almost thrice more. Percent shares of the aquatic macrophytes and zooplankton in different water bodies varied in close limits – 1–6% for macrophytes and 17–27% for zoo plankton. Such limits of the phytoplankton and invertebrates macrofauna species number were wider (31–53% and 22–44% respectively). Ratio of the biotic groups in terms of species richness in the lakes and channels of the Sulina delta was similar, and in those of the Kiliya delta – different (See Fig. 2.3.1).

Fig. 2.3.2. Species richness of the water bodies’ biotic complexes

108


Fig. 2.3.3 Ratio of biotic groups’ species richness

109

СHAPTER 2

Fig. 2.3.4 Similarity of the water objects of the Danube delta in terms of their biota composition in different periods of inves tigation (A – 2006; B – 2007; C – two years)

Analysis of the Danube delta water bodies in terms of their biotic complexes’ species composition on the base of two-year investigation (Fig. 2.3.4) revealed certain division into the Sulina and Kiliya deltas. Differentiation was noted into types for all water bodies, except the Matita lake and the Lopathna channel. In the similarity analysis for the 2006 and 2007 separately this pattern was not so evident, absolutely clear differentiation of the water objects into two deltas was not noted. Although as a whole similar groups were formed, especially in 2007. Exception was the Anankin Kut lake, which was referred to the Sulina delta group in 2006 and took intermediate posi110


Fig. 2.3.5 Similarity of the water objects of the Danube delta by the species composition of the separate biotic groups (2006–2007). (A – phytoplankton, B – zooplankton, C – macrophytes, D – macrofauna of invertebrates)

tion in 2007. Analysis of the individual biotic groups’ species composition over the two-year period revealed significant differences of the plankton communities in two parts of the delta (Fig. 2.3.5). Besides, zooplankton differed in the different types of the water objects. Aquatic macrophytes and invertebrate macrofauna have not such distinctions. At that time distinctions 111

СHAPTER 2

in the species composition in the lakes of the Kiliya and Sulina deltas were noted. Analysis of the invertebrate macrofauna species composition enabled to allot some groups of the water bodies with the high level of similarity: channels of the Sulina delta (Lopatna and Suez); lakes of the Sulina delta (Matita, Merhei and Small Merhei), lagoons of the Kiliya delta (Potapiv Kut and Deliukiv Kut), branches of the Kiliya delta (Bystryi and Vostochnyi). Any logical relations had the Sulimanka channel (which was peculiar at one time with quite rich bottom invertebrate fauna and poor phytophilous fauna) and lake Anankin Kut (which was peculiar with adverse relation – poor bottom invertebrate fauna and rich phytophilous fauna). 2.3.2. QUANTITATIVE PARAMETERS Comparative analysis of the total abundance of the biotic groups (Fig. 2.3.6) showed certain differences within the Sulina and Kiliya deltas only for the plankton communities (abundance of phyto- and zooplankton in the channels and lakes of the Sulina delta was higher than in the arms and lakes of the Kiliya delta). Abundance of the phytophilous invertebrates and macrozoobenthos varied in closer limits, differences were not significant. Biomass of only zooplankton was notably lesser in the Kiliya delta water bodies comparatively to those of the Sulina delta (fig. 2.3.7). While analyzing inter-year differences it is worth to note increasing of the abundance and biomass values of phyto- and zooplankton in the Sulina delta in 2007. Other biotic groups revealed no unified dynamics of the quantita tive parameters, in some lakes and channels decrease of the phytophilous and bottom invertebrates number was noted, but any decrease of biomass. Analysis of the ratio of the hydrobionts’ quantitative parameters in different water bodies for the two-year period (2006–2007) showed certain differences in the organisms’ distribution (Fig. 2.3.8). High level of similarity in the both investigated years was registered in the Vostochnyi and Bystryi branches, Potapiv Kut and Deliukiv Kut lagoons, as well as in the Lopathna channel and the Anankin Kut lake. 112


Fig. 2.3.6 Annual average of abundance of the biotic groups.

113

СHAPTER 2

Fig. 2.3.7 Annual average parameters of biomass of the biotic groups

114


Fig. 2.3.8 Similarity of the water objects by the biota’s quantitative parameters (A – 2006; B – 2007).

Fig. 2.3.9. Similarity of the water objects by the chemical composition of water (A – 2006; B – 2007).

High level of similarity of the chemical parameters (more than 70%) was registered in all investigated water bodies in 2006, high-water year. 115

СHAPTER 2

At that similarity for the reservoirs and water courses of the Romanian part of delta was even higher as all of them were united in the unique group without dividing into types (Fig. 2.3.9). Similarity of the Kiliya delta water bodies was lower, but commonness of the chemical para meters was registered within the different water body types (arms, lakes and lagoon). In the low water 2007 high level of similarity in the Sulina delta (except the Lopathna channel) was registered. Within the Kiliya delta two similar in terms of water chemical composition groups were noted: the Bystryi and Vostochnyi branches and all the water bodies.

2.3.3 ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTIC OF THE DANUBE DELTA WATER BODIES On the whole, according to the average rank index (ARI) water bodies of the Sulina delta were less polluted than water bodies of the Kiliya delta. Increase of pollution level was marked in the low-water 2007; maximal pollution level was registered in the Bystryi arm and the Potapiv lake, minimal – in the lakes Merhei and Small Merhei (Fig. 2.3.10–2.3.14). Maximal species richness was registered in big lakes of the Sulina delta (Matita and Merhei), minimal – in the arms of the Kiliya delta Bystryi and Vostochnyi (Fig. 2.3.10). In the most of the water bodies increase of the total species number under the growth of the pollution level was noted, except the Bystryi arm, the Lopathna channel and the bay Deliukiv Kut. Similar dynamics was noted for phytoplankton in all water bodies, except the Vostochnyi arm and Deliukiv Kut lagoon. For the invertebrate macro fauna (zoobenthos and phytophilous macrofauna) inverse correlation was registered – decrease of the species richness under the growth of pollution level in all water bodies, except the Bystryi arm and the Deliukiv Kut lagoon. For zooplankton any regularity of the species 116


richness dynamics depending on the water body type or year of investigation was documented.

Fig. 2.3.10 Dynamics of the species richness and ARI in the Danube delta water bodies. Here and on the figures 2.3.11–2.3.14: 1 – Lopatna, 2 – Suez, 3 – Sulimanca, 4 – Matita, 5 – Merhei, 6 – Small Merhei, 7 – Bystryi, 8 – Vostochnyi, 9 – Anankin Kut, 10 – Potapiv Kut, 11 – Deliukiv Kut; water quality classes: II – fairy clean, III – slightly polluted, IV – moderately polluted.

In phytoplankton in the most number of the water bodies growth of the Shannon index values under the ARI increase was registered, except the Sulimanka channel, the Vostochnyi arm and the bay Deliukiv Kut (Fig. 2.3.11). In zooplankton reducing of the species diversity under the growth of pollution level was registered only in the Bystryi and Vostochnyi brunches and the Deliukiv Kut lagoon. In the communities of the phytophilous fauna reducing of this parameter was also registered, except the Merhei lake and the Bystryi arm. In the communities of zoobenthos any positive interrelation of the pollution level and species diversity was noted. 117

СHAPTER 2

Fig. 2.3.11 Dynamics of the Shannon index and ARI in the Danube delta water bodies

Fig. 2.3.12 Dynamics of TBI and ARI in the Danube delta water bodies.

118


Fig. 2.3.13 Dynamics of the Panthle&Buck index and ARI in the Danube delta water bodies.

Fig. 2.3.14 Dynamics of the average saprobity by Panthle&Buck index and ARI in the Danube delta water bodies.

119

СHAPTER 2

According to the Woodiwiss index values [LIASHENKO, ZORINASAKHAROVA 2012], all water objects of the Sulina delta and water bodies of the Kiliya delta are considered as «clean–fairly clean» waters, and the Bystryi and Vostochnyi branches and the Anankin Kut lake – as «slightly polluted» (Fig. 2.3.12). Under ARI value growth in the Lopathna and Suez channel, as well as in the Merhei lake, Woodiwiss index decreased. In all other water bodies this parameter remained stable during all period of investigation. Saprobity value, calculated on the indicative species of different biotic groups varied in quite wide limits in all water objects (See Fig. 2.3.13): those calculated on phytoplankton and phytophilous fauna corresponded to β-mesosaprobic zone, those calculated on zooplankton corresponded to α-oligo–β-mesosaprobic zone, and those calculated on Fig. 2.3.15 Interrelation of the ARI zoobenthos to α-mesosapand average saprobity index robic zone. Some differences were marked within years of investigation, up to the change of saprobic zone on zooplankton and zoobenthos. Zoobenthos saprobity index growth under the growth of ARI was registered in all water bodies except the Bystryi and Vostochnyi arms and the Deliukiv Kut lagoon. Similar relation of these parameters was registered also for zooplankton (except the Lopathna channel and the Bystryi arm). Any regularity of these parameters relation was noted for phytoplankton and phytophilous fauna. According to [UNIFICYROVANIE… 1977] the most reliable assessment of the saprobic characteristic of the water body can be determined taking into account the majority of the biotic groups. Average saprobity index of the water object was calculated on the individual saprobity indices (phyto120


plankton, zooplankton, zoobenthos). Dynamics of index calculated in such a way is in good agreement with ARI (Fig. 2.3.14). This was confirmed by the regression analysis (Fig. 2.3.15). Exceptions were the Bystryi and Vostochnyi arms and the Deliukiv Kut lagoon, where ARI values growth was associated with decreasing of the average saprobity. Carried out toxicological investigations indicated, that on the whole content of the oil products in water and bottom sediments of the Kiliya delta was higher than in the Sulina delta (Fig. 2.3.16). Similar dynamics of the oil products content in water and bottom sediments was noted: heightened oil products concentration in water was associated with heightened concentration in the bottom sediments (r=0.82). Regression analysis of these toxicants’ content and structural characteristics of the biotic groups indicated only significant decrease of the phytoplankton species richness under the elevated content of the oil products in water (Fig. 2.3.17).

Fig. 2.3.16 Content of the oil products in water and bottom sediments of the Danube delta water bodies

121

СHAPTER 2

It is worth to note that maximal oil products content in water was registered in the Bystryi and Vostochnyi arms and the Deliukiv Kut lagoon, MPC for the fishery was exceeded 4–10 times. Just these water objects, as it was shown above, were peculiar with associated dynamics of the species richness, biotic diversity and P&B index with ARI Fig. 2.3.17. Dependence of the phytoplankton value. Probably, heightened species richness on the content of the oil products concentration oil products in water in water caused certain toxic impact, had selective influence on the structural characteristics of the biotic communities, and therefore disturbed regular behavior of some indices, first of all saprobiological. Summarizing mentioned above data it is worth to note that water objects of the Sulina delta were less polluted than those of the Kiliya delta: Sulina delta – ІІ-ІІІ quality class, Kiliya delta – ІІІ-IV quality class. Although, dynamics of the biotic indices did not always depend on the water quality. Most of the investigated water objects had similar dynamics of ARI variations and average saprobity, but in the Bystryi and Vostochnyi arms and the Deliukiv Kut lagoon changes of these parameters had inverse directions. It is interesting, that water of these water bodies had the most content of the oil products (exceeding of the fishery MPC by a factor of 4–10), and probably this is the cause of the disturbance of the saprobity index regular behavior.

122

CHAPTER 3.

JOINT ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING, ASSESSMENT AND EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION FOR INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF THE DANUBE DELTA. 3.1. AQUATIC MACROPHYTES Aquatic macrophytes are the aquatic plants, despite of their systematic position, well distinguishable without using magnifiers. In fresh waters they include higher aquatic plants (i.e. Bryophyta, Lycopodiophyta, Equisetophyta, Polypodiophyta and Magnoliophyta), algae Charophyta and green filamentous algae [RASPOPOV 1978, JOINT… 2008]. Water Frame Directive [EU… 2006] considers macrophytes as one of the important groups to determine the ecological status of the water bodies. It is connected with the fact that macrophytes are well noticeable, rather easy to be identified without using magnifiers, the ecology of many species is well studied. Moreover, macrophyte communities have environmental and edificator significance. They form vegetations, which allow to get an idea on the whole biogeocoenosis using the boundaries and composition of phytocoenosis. The most often the macrophytes in the shallow water are the main producers of the primary production, underlying most of the energy process in water bodies. Macrophytes were studied in late September – early November 2011 at 16 stations in the Danube delta: in the main channel (station 2, 3), the firstorder arms – Kiliya (station 4–6), Tulcea (station 8); the second-order arms – Sulina (station 9, 10) and St. George (station 11, 12); the third-order arms – Bystryi (station 7), and in the lakes in the territory of Romanian part of the delta (station 13–16). Sulina arm is straightened and has dams along its whole course. This arm serves as navigation channel. Bystryi branch also has an 123

СHAPTER 3

artificial navigation channel. In the arms the studies were along both banks at the shallow-water areas (100 m length). In the lakes we studied 100-m areas in ecologically diverse coastal shallow water sections. In Cuibul cu Lebede lake (station 16) the transect was developed from one bank to another. We studied the species composition (mainly) of the higher aquatic plants [DOBROCHAEVA, KOTOV, PROKUDIN et al. 1987], evaluated their participation in the overgrowing (abundance-coverage) by the European scale. Unfortunately, the late terms of the expedition did not allow to identify the species composition completely and to determine the species representation, which had an impact on the ecological state assessment quality. We studied flora of the semi-aquatic species as an additional criterion (their presence is specified in Table 1 by „+”). The following ecological groups are differentiated in Ukraine among macrophytes [PAPCHENKOV 2003]: TRUE AQUATIC PLANTS ecotype group HYDROPHYTE ecotype (true aquatic plants) 1. Macroscopic algae and aquatic mosses. 2. Hydrophytes floating in water (Ceratophillum, Lemna trisulca, Utri cularia). 3. Rooted submersed hydrophytes (Myriophyllum, Najas, Vallisneria and others). 4. Rooted hydrophytes with floating leaves (Nuphar, Nymphaea, Nymphoides, Potamogeton nodosus and others). 5. Free-floating hydrophytes (Lemna minor, Salvinia, Spirodela and others). COASTAL AQUATIC PLANTS ecotype group HELOPHYTES ecotype – aero-aquatic plants 6. Short-grass helophytes – helophytes with average length lower than 1 m (Butomus, Sagittaria, Sparganium erectum and others); 7. High-grass helophytes – helophytes with average length of 1 m and higher (Typha, Phragmites, Scirpus and others); HYGROHELOPHYTES ecotype group – species of the low levels of the coastal flood water zone (Agrostis stolonifera, Bolboschoenus maritimus, 124

JOINT ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING, ASSESSMENT AND EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION FOR INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF THE DANUBE DELTA.

Carex acuta, Oenanthe aquatica, Ranunculus linqva, Rumex hydrolapatum, Sium latifolium and others). Another classification was used in JDS 2 (like as in JDS 1 and MIDCC-project) [JOINT… 2008]: 1. Submersed pleustophytes (sp) – species floating in water (Lemna, Utricularia); 2. Submersed anchored (sa) – anchored submersed species (Charophyta, mosses, Ceratophillum) and all rooted submersed macrophytes; 3. Rooted plants with floating leaves (fl) – rooted species with floating leaves; 4. Acro pleustophytes (ap) – species free-floating on the water surface; 5. Amphiophytes (am) – species which can grow on the bank like helophytes or in water like submersed (Sparganium emersum, Oenanthe aquatica, Cicuta viroza and others); 6. Helophytes (he) – all plants on the bank which has close relation with water. If submersed and above-water parts of the plant are developed approximately similar, it is referred to am, if submersed part is prevailing it is referred to sa, if above-water part is prevailing it is referred to he. Different characteristics can be used as the factor of the species significance in the plant cover composition: number of individuals (shoots), phytomass, production, participation in the overgrowing (in percentage or in scores). A five-point scale of species abundance assessment is used in Europe [TRAINING COURSE…, 2011]: 1. – very rare – 1 - 5 plants in field of vision; 2. – rare – more plants but they occupy less than 5% of area; 3. – normal – the species can be found with little effort; 4. – common, not massive, covers the regions with large breaks; 5. – abundant, dominant species, it covers more than 50% of area. In addition, in the personal discussions with the Romanian colleagues and during the expedition we found out that some species, such as Azolla filiculoides Lam. and Ceratophyllum demersum L., are defined more widely in Romania than in Ukraine. 125

СHAPTER 3

In the large Danube arms with the sharp increase of the depth and high turbidity, the vegetation development depends on the depth, flow rate, water level fluctuations and character of the benthic deposits. Potamogeton nodosus, P. pectinatus, P. perfoliatus, Ceratophyllum demersum, Myriophyllum spicatum, Nymphoides peltata, Trapa natans true aquatic plants are usually found in the active arms. They can be individual plants or thin beds located by the narrow strip along the bank up to 0,6-0,7 m depth. The branches lost their hydrological activity gradually become silted. At first the bed strip is widening, then it is completely overgrown by the submersed and free-floating vegetation which is substituted with the communities of the overflow land. This process is faster in the shallow channels. Danube delta water bodies are usually shallow. The vegetation development there depends on the water saltiness, wind - wave actions, external water exchange, character of benthic deposits and water trophicity. There are eurytopic species (of wide ecological range) and stenotopic species which can exist in rather narrow range of factors. The latter are more suitable to evaluate the environment quality. The complexity of assessment will depend on the leveling action of the different factors, ecological flexibility of plants and different stability of the species at the areal borders. The structural characteristics of the aquatic macrophytes and semiaquatic plants at the different stations are presented in Anex 2 and Fig. 3.1. At station 2 (Danube, Reni - 71 mile) and station 3 (Danube, Chatal Izmail – 44 mile) macrophytes were practically absent. Only at station 2 far from water edge some single undeveloped shoots of Phragmites australis were found. The single shoots of the species listed in Table 1 were observed on the bank. Only Cyperus glomeratus had a massive development. The height of its shoots (more than 1 m) and the willow roots (mangrove type) tell about the significant water level fluctuations (not less than 4 m), and indicate to the conditions unsuitable for macrophytes development. Station 4 (Kiliya arm, Izmail – 89,9 km). As for the aquatic plants, a single small bed of Phragmites australis was registered on the bank (a few meters to the water edge). The plants were in vegetative stage. Judging by the root form of Salix and shoot size of Cyperus glomeratus, water level fluctu126


ations are also typical here but their values are lower. Weed species (Bidens tripartitа, Echinochloa crusgali, Erigeron сanadensis, Xanthium strumarium) are prevailing along the bank. It indicates to the anthropogenic load, like the insignificant development of Potamogeton pectinatus at shallow-waters. Station 5 (Kiliya arm, Kiliya – 42 km). Macrophytes are better presented, the aero-aquatic species are developed directly in water. Prevalence of Pota mogeton natans tells about stream presence, Ceratophyllum demersum and weed species on the bank indicate to the anthropogenic load.

Fig. 3.1 Ecological groups of macrophytes on JDDS stations

127

СHAPTER 3

Station 6 (Kiliya arm, Vylkove – 21 km). The aero-aquatic vegetation is better developed in the water and on the wet silty bank. Prevalence of the weed species on the bank and species of the wide ecological range also indi cate to the anthropogenic load. Station 7 (Bystryi branch – 1,0 km). Bystryi branch is one of the most active branches of Kiliya delta. It is used as navigable one. The branch bed construction without evident shallow-waters does not facilitate the deve lopment of the submersed species. The station is located near the fishermen base. Ceratophyllum demersum, Potamogeton pectinatus, P. perfoliatus are developed in water, which can tell about the stream presence and together with the weeds on the bank it indicates to the anthropogenic load. Station 8 (Tulcea branch, Tulcea – 35 mile). The station is located near the hotel (35 Mile). The banks are argillo-arenaceous with some pebble. The aero-aquatic vegetation does not develop on the bank free from water. There are no semi-aquatic species. The residues of Potamogeton pectinatus (submersed plants) and a little of filamentous algae (Cladophora sp.) were found at the hotel side. On the opposite bank there are representatives of Salix genus and the species typical for the wet banks (Gnaphalium uliginosum, Scutellaria galericulata, Cyperus glomeratus). There are single species of the aquatic plants listed in the table. It is possible that the plants have already finished the vegetation or the set of the conditions does not favor their development. Station 9 (Sulina arm, Milе 23 – 23 milе). The station is located near the village (23 Mile). The samples were taken in the beds on the bank opposite to the village. The structure of vegetation tells about the stream presence, fresh alluvial deposits and free biogenic elements. Station 10 (Sulina arm, Sulina – 1,0 mile). It is the offshore zone of Sulina arm with man-made changes. There is dirty sand in the benthic deposits. The aero-aquatic vegetation is developed in the narrow coastal area. The vegetation indicates to the presence of stream and benthic deposits, rich with nutrients. The anthropogenic drain from the bank is possible. Station 11 (St. George arm, cut meander Uzlina). It is the dead meander, tough silt is prevailing in the benthic deposits. There is very little vegetation, 128


even free-floating. Possible they have finished the vegetation. Prevalence of Myriophyllum spicatum and Ceratophyllum demersum with filamentous algae tells about biogens presence. Probably, they are the last stages of overgrowing. Station 12 (St. George arm, St. George – 1,0 mile). The station has the highest amount of the aquatic plant species. There are favorable conditions for the different ecological species growth – presence of stream, possible salt water surges and sufficient amount of the nutrients in water. Station 13 (Danube Delta Wetlands, Erenciuc lake). It is the floodplain lake in delta surrounded by overflow land canes. There is sufficient amount of biogenic elements in the water. The sampling was performed at three points differed by the external water exchange probably. Nuphar lutea and Trapa natans are better developed at the areas with the alluvial deposits. The vegetation of the waterlogged areas with the weak water exchange is presented by the communities of Nymphaea alba with Ceratophyllum demersum and Hydrocharis morsus-ranae. More extensive waterlogging is characterized by the development of Stratiotes aloides, Ceratophyllum demersum and Hydrocharis morsus-ranae. Station 14 (Danube Delta Wetlands, Uzlina lake). The lake is surrounded by the reed, the water level has significantly reduced. The areas of Vallisneria spiralis with Trapa natans are located among all reach indicating to the good water exchange and presence of fresh alluvium. Station 15 (Danube Delta Wetlands, Isak lake). Stations 15 and 16 are characterized by the low development of macrophytes. It can be connected with the unfavorable season of study. The water exchange in Isak lake (station 15) is lower than in Cuibul cu lebede lake (station 16). The lake has sufficient and heavy layer of silts. Station 16 (Danube Delta Wetlands, Cuibul cu lebede lake). The lake is intensively becoming waterlogged. Ceratophyllum demersum and Stratiotes aloides are massively developed here. The beds of Phragmites australis approach the reach. Station 12 (sea gate of St. George arm) is the most favorable for macro phytes development in the branches. It is characterized by the highest 129

СHAPTER 3

amount of species. Station 10 (sea gate of Sulina arm) and stations in Kiliya arm of Danube (6, 5 and 7) located near the cities of Vilkove, Kiliya and in the mouth of Bystryi branch are similar to the station 12 (the comparison was conducted using Sørensen index [WHITTAKER 1980]). As for the lakes, station 14 (Uzlina lake) has the highest species richness. Only station 13 (Erenciuc lake) demonstrated the similarity more than 50%. The quality similarity with macrophytes of two other floodplain lakes is about 30% and 40%. We did not manage to calculate the saprobity of each station as saprobic coefficients are not known for all found species [UNIFITSIROVANNYIE … 1977]. Most of the macrophytes species registered in Danube delta are ty pical for β-mesosaprobic area. At station 9 (Sulina arm, Milе 23 – 23 milе) Salvinia natans, which prefers о-saprobic water and Nuphar lutea, which is found both in β-mesosaprobic and о-saprobic conditions, are well presented together with the mass development of Ceratophyllum demersum (typical β-mesosaprobic species). Hydrocharis morsus-ranae (well developed in о-saprobic and β-mesosaprobic water) and Nymphaea alba, which grows not only in β-mesosaprobic but also in cleaner о-saprobic conditions, are prevailing at station 13 (Erenciuc lake). Twenty five species (and one subspecies) of the aquatic vascular hydrophytes and helophytes, 2 species of aquatic ferns (Azolla filiculoides Lam., Salvinia natans (L.) All.), charophytes and green filamentous algae whose rank was not identified (20 species of vascular hydrophytes and helophytes were detected at two delta stations studied during JDDS 2 project) were revealed at the studied area of Danube delta. As for helophytes, Phragmites australis and Typha angustifolia are the dominants. Among the hydrophytes (most closely connected with aquatic environment) – Ceratophyllum demersum and Potamogeton pectinatus (species of wide ecological range) are the dominants. The unfavorable season of study is the reason of detection not all macrophytes common in Danube delta. Most submersed species have already finished their vegetation in September – beginning of October. July – the beginning of August is more favorable season to study summer flora. Station 12 (St. George arm, St. George – 1,0 mile) and 14 (Danube Del130


ta Wetlands, Uzlina lake) have the highest species richness with the most diverse ecotopes. Almost no aquatic plants were found at stations 2, 3 and 4 due to high fluctuations of water levels. Most macrophytes species registered at the studied stations, characterize the conditions of their growth as β-mesosaprobic. Joint study of Danube delta by the specialists from Ukraine, Romania and Moldova showed different understanding of the volume (content) of some macrophytes species. Different methods were used to distinguish the ecological group and indicator species and also to determine the environmental quality. From our point of view, the joint trainings of the specialists from Danube countries (at least from the countries located in Danube delta) are required to work out the common vision. It is preferably to conduct aerial visual survey at the bigger and longer water bodies (floodplain lakes, delta branches) to monitor macrophyte vegetation and evaluate the area of beds (mostly aero-aquatic plants and plants with floating leaves). It is even better to use the large-scale spectrozonal aerophotographs or the space photographs with high-resolution.

1.2. PHYTOBENTHOS In accordance with the Water Frame Directive of ЕС 2000/60/ ЕС (WFD) phytobenthos is a biological quality element to determine the ecological state of all river types (WFD, Annex V) [EU 2006]. According to WFD phytobenthos comprises the submerged higher aquatic plants and macroalgae, benthic algae (microphytobenthos) and phytoperiphyton (attached forms). In this study we consider proper phytobenthos – microalgae on the surface of the bottom sediments. According to WFD, for the evaluation of the water body ecological status taxonomic composition and quanti tative values (numbers and biomass – abundance) of phytobenthos are used. Over the JDDS study in benthic samples 130 algal species of 7 groups were identified. Maximal species number belong to Bacillariophyta (81 species, 89 intraspecific taxa) – 61% of total. Chlorophyta comprised 32 species (26%). 131

СHAPTER 3

Cyanoprokaryota and Euglenophyta were presented significantly less widely – 7 species each. Cryptophyta, Chrysophyta and Xanthophyta were presented with one species each (Anex 3). The genera Navicula (12 species, 14 intraspecific taxa), Nitzschia (12 species), Scenedesmus (8 species), Gomphonema (7 species, 8 intraspecific taxa), Cymbella and Synedra (6 species each) were presented the most widely. It should be noted, that species of Euglenophyta, Cryptophyta, Chrysophyta and Xanthophyta were met occasionally (by single cells). They did not produce notable abundance or biomass. The extremely low amount of these algae could be explained by the sampling season. Thus, euglenids are rather usual element of phytobenthos of the plain water bodies of the middle latitudes. They are abundant in some seasons in the lakes of Ukrainian delta. Their absence could be conditioned by hydrological and hydrochemical regime of the examined water bodies. Clarification of this matter will require regular seasonal observation during vegetation season. Bacillariophyta division were unconditional dominant in phytobenthos at all stations. Their portion in numbers and biomass varied from 32,1–91,1 to 86,9–97,4% (Fig. 3.2). The species richness of phytobenthos at different sites varied from 11 to 69.

Fig. 3.2. The species richness and taxonomic diversity of phytobenthos at the different stations.

132


The analysis of the similarity of phytobenthos species composition using Jaccard coefficients and the further cluster analysis allowed to allocate three groups of the stations (clusters) with similar species composition of the benthic algae (Fig. 3.3): - the stations of the main channel and Kiliya arm (stations 2–7); - the stations of Tulcea, Sulina and St. George arms (stations 8–12); - the stations of the delta lakes (stations 13–16). Phytobenthos species composition of water bodies and water courses was notably different.

Fig. 3.3 Similarity of phytobenthos species composition of some stations.

Algae abundance and biomass varied within wide limits – from 230,77 to 7637,36 th. cells/10 cm2 and from 0,224 to 7,738 mg/10 cm2. The lowest values were recorded at station 8 – Tulcea, the highest – at station 16 Culbul cu Lebede lake. The low quantitative parameters were registered at stations 1–7 (from Reni up to Bystryi), at station 10 – Sulina and at station 12 – St. George (table 3.1.). The values of species diversity (Shannon indices calculated by abundance and biomass) were rather high – abundance: from 3,10 to 4,61, biomass: from 3,24 to 4,87. 133

134

Species richness

10

18

13

15

16

12

11

29

№ of station

N 2 – Reni

N 3 – Cheatal

N 4 – Izmail

N 5 – Kiliia

N 6 – Vilkove

N 7 – Bystryi

N 8 – Tulcea

N 9 – 23 Mile

1351,65

230,77

307,69

395,60

318,68

329,67

527,47

307,69

1,546

0,224

0,699

0,669

0,834

0,657

1,140

0,540

Surirella ovata Cymbella lanceolata Nitzschia sigmoidea

Synedra ulna Gyrosigma acuminatum

Surirella tenera Surirella ovata

Gyrosigma acuminatum Didymosphenia geminata

1,98

2,00

1,88

1,74

Oscillatoria limosa Synedra tabulata

Stephanodiscus subtilis Cyclotella sp. Cocconeis pediculus

Stephanodiscus subtilis Cyclotella sp.

Cymbella lata Gyrosigma acuminatum Diatoma vulgare Melosira granulata

Cocconeis pediculus Stephanodiscus subtilis

Surirella ovata, Amphiprora paludosa Gyrosigma acuminatum

2,19

1,90

1,98

Synedra actinastroides Gyrosigma acuminatum 1,90 Stephanodiscus hantzschii Stephanodiscus hantzschii

Cyclotella sp. Stephanodiscus subtilis Melosira granulata

Cyclotella sp. Stephanodiscus subtilis

Synedra actinastroides Cyclotella sp.

Stephanodiscus subtilis Cyclotella sp.

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

4,17 4,05

3,10 3,24

3,24 3,07

3,70 3,63

3,65 3,55

3,49 3,37

3,80 3,46

2,96 2,93

Abundance Saprobity Biomass th. cells/ H/N H/B 2 Dominantes by abundance Dominantes by biomass mg/10 sm index zone 10 sm2

Table 3.1 Characteristics of phytobenthos

СHAPTER 3

Species richness

13

30

20

33

61

69

54

130

№ of station

N 10 – Sulina

N 11 – Uzlina

N 12 - St George

N 13 – Erinciuc lake

N 14 – Uzlina lake

N 15 – Isak lake

N 16 – Culbul cu Lebede lake

Total

7637,36

6340,66

3208,79

6219,78

615,38

1107,69

373,63

7,738

4,449

7,024

5,169

0,72

1,307

0,398

Cocconeis pediculus Cocconeis placentula

Merismopedia minima Merismopedia punctata

Merismopedia minima Merismopedia punctata

Merismopedia minima Amphora perpusilla

Microcystis aeruginosa Melosira granulata

Navicula cryptocephala Stephanodiscus subtilis

Cymbella lanceolata Synedra capitata

Melosira granulata Cocconeis pediculus

Surirella biseriata Cymbella lanceolata

Melosira granulata Cymbella lanceolata

Gyrosigma acuminatum Navicula cryptocephala

Crucigeniella rectangularis Nitzschia sigmoidea Cocconeis placentula Surirella ovata Diatoma vulgare

Cocconeis pediculus Cyclotella sp. Cyclotella glomerata

b

b

b

b

3,22 3,30

4,14 4,01

4,48 4,23

3,39 3,34

1,83

1,92

b

b

4,61 4,68

4,49 4,87

1,93 -meso 5,45 4,70

1,98

2,05

2,05

1,72

Abundance Saprobity Biomass th. cells/ H/N H/B 2 Dominantes by abundance Dominantes by biomass mg/10 sm index zone 10 sm2 JOINT ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING, ASSESSMENT AND EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION FOR INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF THE DANUBE DELTA.

135

СHAPTER 3

Stations 2–7 are located along main channel of the Danube and Kiliya arm: species composition and quantitative parameters differed insignificantly: 10–18 species, quantitative parameters varied within 307,69– 527,47 th. cell/10 cm2 and 0,540–1,140 mg/10 cm2. On the whole, the species composition of these stations was rather uniform with some small differences mainly specified by insignificant quantitative development and calculation errors related to it. Centrophyceae were the background group, they were registered at all stations in the considerable amount: Stephanodiscus subtilis, Cyclotella sp., Aulacoseira granulata and other. It should be mentioned that the first species is prevailing in phytoplankton of the lower section of the Danube river in some seasons. These species also were dominant in terms of numbers. The big-cell species of Surirella, Cymbella lanceolata, Gyrosigma acuminata genera prevailed in terms biomass. Special attention should be paid to the presence of Didymosphenia geminata, its single cells were found practically in all samples. This genus is not typical for the middle and lower section of the Danube downstream; it was brought by the current from the mountainous sections of the basin. This benthic periphytic species is included into the Global Invasive Species Database. Its extensive development could have unfavorable effect on the water quality. The brackish water species Amphiprora paludosa was revealed in phytobenthos of the downstream station 7 (Bystryi branch) in the signifi cant amount, the most probably indicating notable effect of the marine water on this area. Station 3 (Izmail Cheatal) was notable for species richness and quantitative parameters. It can be related to micro-biotope features where phytobenthos sample was taken. Station 8 – Tulcea: species richness and quantitative parameters were the lowest. Eleven algal species were detected: 10 Bacillariophyta and 1 Chlorophyta. Stephanodiscus subtilis (65,9%) and Cocconeis pediculus (32,92%) had the highest abundance. It should be mentioned that the first species is abundant in phytoplankton of the downstream of Danube sections in some seasons. The low species richness and abundance of phytobenthos at this station was probably conditioned by the unstable hydrological conditions and high turbidity. 136


Station 9–23 Mile: phytobenthos comprised 29 taxa of Cyanoprokaryota, Cryptophyta, Chlorophyta (one species) and Bacillariophyta (26 species). The numbers amounted to 1351,65 th. cells/10 cm2, biomass – 1,546 mg/10 cm2. Maximal portion of numbers (24,4%) was formed by Oscillatoria limosa, the most probably owing to the entry of the waste waters from the settlements located upstream. Synedra tabulatа also was quite abundant (10,6%). Typical benthic forms Cymbella lata, Gyrosigma acuminatum, Diatoma vulgare and Melosira granulata formed maximal portions of biomass – respectively 16,1, 15,0 and 10,9%, respectively. In addition, rather high portion of species list was formed by periphytic forms – species of the genera Amphora, Roicosphenia, Cymbella and Gomphonema. Station 10 – Sulina: species richness was low – 13 species, 12 of Bacillariophyta and one of Chlorophyta. The quantitative parameters amounted to 373,63 th. cells/10 cm2 and 0,398 mg/10 cm2. Dominants in terms of numbers and biomass were similar to those at station 8 – the highest values were registered in Cocconeis pediculus (respectively 14.7 and 20.7%). The abundance of Aulacoseira granulata v. angustissima, Cyclotella sp., Cyclotella glomerata and Cocconeis placentula were equal (11.8% each). The latter was subdominant in terms of biomass – 14,4%. Like at station 8, low species number and quantitative parameters were probably stipulated by the high flow rate and turbidity. Station 11 – Uzlina: species list comprised 30 taxa of four groups – 1 Cryptophyta, 1 Euglenophyta, 5 Chlorophyta and 23 Bacillariophyta. Abundance and biomass amounted to 1107,69 th. cells/10 cm2 and 1,307 mg/10 cm2. Only here the green algae Crucigeniella rectangularis (Chlorophyta) was dominant in terms of abundance. Though it is considered the planktonic, it was abundant in the bottom water layer (12,7% of total). Cocconeis placentula was the second in terms of abundance (8,7%). Dominant complex by biomass included the big-cell Bacillariophyta: Nitzschia sigmoidea, Surirella ovata and Cocconeis placentula (respectively 11,5, 9.2 and 9,6%). It can be assumed that habitat conditions of phytobenthos at this station were more favorable than at the upstream. Station 12 – St George: species richness comprised 20 taxa: 1 of Cryptophyta, 1 of Chlorophyta and 18 Bacillariophyta. Quantitative parameters 137

СHAPTER 3

amounted to 615,38 th. cells/10 cm2 and 0,72 mg/10 cm2. Navicula cryptocephala and Stephanodiscus subtilis (14,3 and 8,9%) dominated inn terms of abundance, Gyrosigma acuminatum and Navicula cryptocephala (16,1 and 9,4%) – in terms of biomass. Station 13 – Erinciuc lake: species richness comprised 33 species: 1 of Cryptophyta and Euglenophyta, 7 of Chlorophyta and 24 of Bacillariophyta. The quantitative parameters were 6219,78 th. cells/10 cm2 and 5,17 mg/ 10 cm2. Dominant complex in terms of biomass included Microcystis aeru ginosa and Aulacoseira granulata (30,0 and 21,2%). A. granulata formed maximal portion of biomass (45,5% of total), Cymbella lanceolata was subdominant (9,1%). Station 14 – Uzlina lake: species richness was high – 61 taxa of 6 groups, including 1 of Cyanoprokaryota, Cryptophyta and Xanthophyta, 4 of Euglenophyta, 8 of Chlorophyta and 46 of Bacillariophyta. Quantitative parameters mounted to 3208,79 th. cells/10 cm2 and 7,024 mg/10 cm2. Portions of Cyanoprokaryta and Chlorophyta in abundance were almost equal (respectively 11,0 and 13,7%). The small-cell planktonic Cyanoprokaryota Merismopedia minima formed maximal portions of abundance (11,0%), though its portion in biomass did not reach even one-tenth of percent. The highest biomass was formed by the big-cell Surirela biseriata and Cymbella lanceolata (20,4 and 11,8%), though but their portions in abundance did not exceed 0,7%. Algae of Cryptophyta and Xanthophyta were found as single cells. Station 15 – Isak lake: species richness was the highest among all exa mined stations – 69 species from 7 divisions. Cryptophyta, Euglenophyta, Chrysophyta and Xanthophyta were presented by 1 species each, 4 – of Cyanoprokaryota. The most diverse were Chlorophyta (22 species), on the contrary to the other stations – it is almost 31,2% of total species composition. 39 species (56,5%) belonged to Bacillariophyta. The quantitative parameters were 6340,66 th. cells/10 cm2 and 4,449 mg/10 cm2. Like at the previous station, the small-cell Merismopedia minima and Merismopedia punctata were the most abundant (27,7 and 8,3%). Total Cyanoprokaryota portion in abundance amounted to 46,8%, whereas their portion in biomass was 0,5%. The portion of Chlorophyta in total abundance was almost 20%, 138


portion of Bacillariophyta – 32,1%. Melosira granulatа and Cocconeis pedi culus formed the highest biomass (19,1 and 8,2%). Station 16 – Cuibul cu Lebede lake: species richness was also rather high – 54 species of 5 groups: 4 Cyanoprokaryota, 1 Euglenophyta, 9 Chlorophyta and 40 Bacillariophyta. At this station quantitative parameters were maximal among all examined – 7637,36 th. cells/10 cm2 and 7,738 mg/10 cm2. The small-cell Cyanoprokaryota Merismopedia minima and Merismopedia punctata were the most abundant (18,4 and 13,8%). Total Cyanoprokaryota’s portion was 44,5% of abundance. The large cell Bacillariophyta – Cymbella lanceolata, Epithemia turgida and Cocconeis pediculus formed maximal portions of biomass (12,2; 10,9 and 8,7%). On the whole, the species composition of phytobenthos in the examined water bodies was quite rich. At the same time, only Bacillariophyta and Cyanoprokaryota had the mass development, with the exception of station 11, where the species of Chlorophyta prevailed. The features of phytobenthos development at stations 13, 14, 15 and 16 consisted in the high values of abundance of the small-cell Cyanoprokaryota. At the same time, their portion in biomass did not exceed one-tenth of percent. Probably, these algae settled in the benthic layers from plankton at the end of vegetation season, when the study was carried out. Benthic forms – large cell Bacillariophyta prevailed in terms of biomass. Phytobenthos of the examined areas included big portion of the periphytic forms – the species of genera Cymbella, Gomphonema, Amphora, Roicosphenia. Centrophycea played an important role at stations 8, 9, 10 and 12. These algae were typical for the plankton of the Danube main channel. It should be noted that JDS-2 results [JOINT 2008] (we used the study results of the whole channel and of the mouth areas of the tributaries for comparison) demonstrated almost the same number of algae species (without Bacillariophyta) – 52 species of 3 groups versus 49 species of 6 groups, registered in our study. In JDS-2 they mostly included species of Chlorophyta and Cyanoprokaryota, and only 2 species of Rhodophyta (in the upper sections). The differences could be related to the fact that in our studies part of the stations was located in low-flowing water areas, where the 139

СHAPTER 3

conditions for Chlorophyta, Cyanoprokaryota and Euglenophyta development are more favorable than in the main channel. Moreover, Chlorophyta and Cyanoprokaryota found in phytobenthos in our study were mostly plankton forms. The report of JDS-2 mentioned mostly filamentous forms. The amount of Bacillariophyta species registered in JDS-2 was significantly higher than the amount recorded in our study – 391 taxa versus 89. It is explained by more extended region and biotopes diversity. We consider unreasonable to calculate the frequency of occurrence owing to small amount of stations. Unfortunately, the report on the JDS-2 results does not contain the detailed floristic analysis of phytobenthos – the species abundance by groups and complete list with their locations (or as minimum with the link to Danube region), which complicates the detailed comparison. In general, the phytobenthos composition at the most studied stations at time of observations can be preliminary evaluated as good – satisfactory. It is confirmed by the high values of the species diversity indices, values of the saprobic index not exceeding -mesosaprobic zone. However, large amount of the small-cell Cyanoprokaryota in phytobenthos (due to plankton settling) at stations 13–16 indicates their mass development in these water bodies and possible unfavorable consequences after their further die-off and decom position.

1.1. MACROZOOBENTHOS Significance of the benthic invertebrates as one of the leading biotic component of aquatic ecosystems is well recognized. Bottom dwel lers are mostly responsible for the formation of the ecosystem biodiversity. They play an important role in creating the substance and energy flows, the processes of self-purification and bioaccumulation, define the trophic status and productional characteristics of the water bodies and are the reliable indicators of the water saprobity and state of the aquatic ecosystems. Benthic invertebrate fauna is an integral part of aquatic ecosystem monitoring, as it was established that the structural and functional parameters 140


of the benthic communities appropriately display the general picture of the ecosystem state. They are the important indicators of the aquatic environment quality [AFANASYEV 2002; METCALFE 1989]. Significance of the benthic invertebrates in bioindication of the aquatic ecosystem state is mentioned in the known Directive of European Parliament and Council of Europe establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy 2000/60/ЕС (Water Frame Directive, WFD) [EU…, 2006] – the most competent normative document today regulating the process of determination of the ecological state, organization and conduction of different water bodies monitoring. According to the WFD, macrozoobenthos or benthic invertebrate fauna means the invertebrates, who live at least part of their life cycle at (or in) the benthic substrate of the rivers, lakes, transit or coastal waters. Macrozoobenthos is included into the biocomponents of determination of the ecological state of all rivers [EU 2006 Annex V]. Upon the approval of the European Water Framework Directive ЕU 60/2000 (WFD), which defined the priority of the biotic component in water management [EU, 2006], bioindication of water contamination and ecosystem conditions is gaining ever more significance in European countries. WFD does not propose concrete approaches being obligatory for implementation in all counties or water basins; moreover, each country, in addition to assessments based upon the WFD principles, is free to use national-based methodologies. The adequacy of results should be reached by virtue of international trainings, intercalibrations, joint projects and expeditions. In this respect, most significant for the Danube are the surveys performed under the aegis of ICPDR: JDS (the Joint Danube Survey) and the JDS2, conducted in 2001 and 2007, as well as our survey – JDDS (the Joint Danube Delta Survey) held in 2011. Pursuant to WDF [EU… 2006], one of the biological elements of ecological condition classification is the composition and spread of bottom-dwelling invertebrates that are characterized (described) on the basis of a set of indexes. In the reports of the aforesaid surveys, to these indexes belong species composition, quantity, biomass and establishing saprobity. The experience of international surveys of the Danube [JDS2, 2008] 141

СHAPTER 3

has demonstrated the differences between sampling and material proces sing methods, assessment methods that are consistent with WFD principles [JOINT… 2008]. Systemic research of macrozoobenthos of the Lower Danube, the river’s delta and the adjacent basins has a lengthy history. The early research conducted in the end of the nineteenth century [BOURGUIGNAT 1870, OSTRO UMOV 1897, 1898, ZERNOV 1908, MILASCHEVICH 1908, ANTIPA 1914] was fauna-oriented in nature and presented the general idea about the species composition of invertebrates, the taxonomic structure and the condition of the Ponto-Caspian relict fauna. In the 1920’s, German researcher H. Spandl [1926] offered the description of more than 200 species of bottom-dwelling invertebrates of the Danube delta. Further on, until 1960’s, fauna research was conducted mainly by Romanian specialists [BACESCO 1934, BORCEA 1924, CARAUSU 1937, MOTAS BACESCO 1937, BOTNARIUC & CANDEA 1953, BOTNARIUC CURE, 1959, ENACEANU 1953, GROSSU, PALADIAN 1956, POPESCU-GORJ, POPESCU, GEORGESCU 1957]. In late 1940’s – early 1950’s, the specialists of the Institute of Hydrobiology National Academy of Ukraine commenced committed hydrobiological research at the Ukrainian section of the Danube and the large lakes of the river’s lower current. Complex generalizing characteristics of the macro zoobenthos of delta and coastal lake waters are provided in the monograph by Yu. М. Markovskyi [1955]. Described for the first time were macrozoobenthos coenoses; quantitative data regarding the development and representation of separate species were furnished. This classic work occupies a unique position to this day, whereas it generalizes the material that can be presently employed for prognostic estimation of water ecosystems condition as a basis for comparison. In 1960’s – 1970’s the survey of macrozoobenthos in the Ukrainian section of the delta was performed by G. А. Olivari [1961], V. V. Polischuk [1974] and L. N. Zimbalevskaya [1969]. In the Romanian section of the delta, fauna and taxonomic research continued to develop [POPESCU 1963, POPESCU, BOTEA 1962, BREZEANU, PRUNESCUY 1962, GROSSU 1963, POPESCU-MARINESCU, ZINEVICI 1968 (a, b)]. A new approach, including community studies and the assess142


ment of energy flow through some taxonomic groups, was initiated during the middle of the 1970’s [TUDORANCEA at al. 1976; DIACONU 1985; BOTNARIUC et al. 1987, VADINEANU et al. 1985, NEACSU, TEODO RESCU 1985, RISNOVEANU et al. 1997]. Complex research of macrozoobenthos coenoses, their structural-functional characteristics, the participation of invertebrates in the process of water quality formation was initiated in Ukraine in 1980’s–1990’s under the leadership of the Ukrainian hydrobiologist Professor T.A. Kharchenko [1993]. Once the Danube Delta became a Natural Reserve, part of the Biosphere, Reserves World heritage 1991, ecological and limnological research embraced a more general ecosystem approach, including aspects of conservation and management [ALEKSANDROV at al. 1999, LIASHENKO, METELETSKAYA 2002, RISNOVEANU et al. 2000, VADINEANU at al. 2001, 2001a, 2003]. Starting the late 20th – early 21st century, research conducted by Ukrai nian scientists has been directed at the review of the general biological diversity of macrozoobenthos of the delta, the condition of the populations of rare and disappearing species, and the penetration of invading species [ALEKSANDROV at al. 2007; KORNYUSHIN, LIASHENKO 2004, KHARCHENKO 2005; MAKOVSKIY, LYASHENKO 2011; SON 2007, LIASHENKO at al. 2009, 2010; SANZHAK at al., 2012], phytophilous fauna [ETINGOVA, 2002, AFANASYEV at al. 2008; ZORINA-SAKHAROVA at al. 2008] and epifauna [SANZHAK, LIASHENKO 2009]. Within the last century, upon the publishing of WFD, evaluations of the ecological conditions of Lower Danube water bodies have been undertaken based on macrozoobenthos organisms [LYASHENKO at al. 2006, 2007; ZORINA-SAKHAROVA, LYASHENKO 2008; ROMANENKO at al., 2011], performed in the framework of national and international projects [LYASHENKO, ZORINA-SAKHAROVA 2008, 2009]. Species composition, structural characteristics of macrozoobenthos and the results of bioindication of water quality at each station are provided in Anex 4. 143

СHAPTER 3

Total taxa (species richness). Totally 115 species of invertebrates were registered. The most species number belonged to Chironomidae (23) and Oligochaeta (21). They were found at each station except station 13 (Erenciuc lake), where Oligochaeta was absent, station 2 (Reni) and station 8 (Tulcea), where Chironomidae were not detected. Also Gastropoda (13 species), Gammaridae (10 species), Bivalvia (9 species) were characterized by notable species richness. There were also registered 6 species of Odonata, 4 species of Hirudinea, Heteroptera and Trichoptera, 3 species of Corophiidae, Ephe meroptera and Coleoptera, 2 species of Bryozoa, Cumacea and Mysidacea. The other taxonomic groups were presented by 1 taxon each. Diversity. Maximal species number was registered at station 9 (Mila 23) and station 11 (Uzlina) – respectively 32 and 31 (Fig. 3.4). The least species number was registered at station 2 (Reni) – 7 species. It was connected with the soil type (heavy clay), absence of the higher aquatic vegetation and other substrates suitable for the invertebrates’ development. Oligochaeta and Gammaridae were widely presented in the water courses, main channel and arms. Chironomidae were widely presented in the most lakes and Oligochaeta prevailed in Isak lake and channels.

Fig. 3.4. Taxonomic composition of macrozoobenthos (at JDDS stations).

144


The analysis of the macrozoobenthos similarity using the Jaccard coefficients with the further clustering of the stations showed some logical regularities of macrozoobenthos distribution (Fig. 3.5). One group includes three of four of the studied delta lakes: station 14 (Uz lina lake), station 16 (Culibul cu lebede lake) and station 13 (Erenciuc lake) and the stations located along St. George arm: station 11 (Uzlina) and station 12 (St. George). No other regularities were detected. It can be related to the high aggregation and pattern structure of benthos distribution in the water courses.

Fig. 3.5. The analysis of the similarity of macrozoobenthos species composition at individual stations (using Jaccard coefficients).

The low similarity values of the benthic invertebrates at the different stations of Kiliya arm also confirm it. They were significantly lower than in Sulina and St. George arms. Sulina and St. George arms have generally high similarity of macrozoobenthos species composition (Table 3.2, Fig. 3.5) – 145

СHAPTER 3

Jaccard coefficients values for these water courses were maximal. In addition, species composition of the lakes and water courses significantly differed. The Tulcea arm joins the Danube main channel in one group, and Kiliya arm, Sulina and St. George arms compose the separate group. Macrozoobenthos species composition of the Kiliya arm differs from the species composition of Sulina and St. George arms (see Fig. 3.5). Table 3.2 Similarity Jaccard coefficients for macrozoobenthos of the main water bodies. Kiliya arm

Tulcea arm

Sulina arm

St. George arm

Lakes

Main channel

22

24

23

22

16

Kiliya arm

*

27

34

32

19

Tulcea arm

*

*

25

19

11

Sulina arm

*

*

*

41

30

St. George arm

*

*

*

*

31

Fig. 3.6. The analysis of the similarity of macrozoobenthos species composition of the water bodies (using Jaccard coefficients)

However, in general the species richness of three arms is characterized by the similar values (Fig. 3.7). 48 species of macrozoobenthos were registered 146


in the Kiliya arm, 47 in the Sulina arm and 43 in St. George arm. Oligochaeta dominated in all arms, where they were presented by 11 species. Only five of them were common for all three arms. The key feature of the Kiliya arm was high diversity of Amphipoda and low of Insecta. In the Sulina arm only two species of Bivalvia were registered, whereas in the Kiliya arm – 5, in the St. George arm – 6. The St. George arm had the lowest species richness of Gastropoda – 5, whereas in the Kiliya and Sulina arm their number was 8.

Fig. 3.7. Taxonomic composition of macrozoobenthos in the main branches of Danube delta.

In the water courses, main channel and delta arms 89 species of the benthic invertebrates were registered, and in the lakes – 58 species. Only in the water courses 56 were found and 22 – only in the water bodies. The main difference of macrozoobenthos of the channels and lakes consisted in higher species number of Oligochaeta, Mollusca and Gammaridae. The number of Chironomidae species in arms and lakes was equal (14). The number of 147

СHAPTER 3

species in the delta arms, found using the dredge sampling, was almost similar to the number, identified in the qualitative samples (kick-net) (respectively 5 and 61). However, in the lakes the quantitative samples showed twice lesser species number than the qualitative samples (respectively 20 and 45). In the Erenciuc lake the significant species richness (23 species) in the qualitative samples (weed beds) was accompanied by total absence of the invertebrates in the bottom sediments (detritus and plant residues). Maximal species number in the dredge samples was registered at station 11 (Uzlina), and in kick-net samples – at station 14 (Uzlina lake). The comparison of the obtained materials with the data of the previous international studies showed that they are quite comparable despite the different methods of sampling (see Fig. 3.8). Over the JDS-1 in the lower section of the Danube River 119 species of macroinvertebrates were registered, and over JDS-2 –153 species. The main differences in the study results are related to the species composition of Diptera (especially Chironomidae). This group was not identified to the species level in JDS-1, but it was paid much attention in JDS-2. We registered half the number of Сhironomidae species than it was registered over JDS-2. The same situation was with Oligochaeta. The species richness of Mollusca in the lower section of Danube was 1.5 times higher in JDS-1 than in JDS-2 and JDDS, where respectively 24 and 22 species were registered. The number of Crustacea species was similar in all three studies. No rare species and species under protection were registered. The relic Ponto-Caspian fauna was widely presented. Over the recent decades its representatives actively expanded their areal and have become invasive in many European ecosystems. At this within their original localities their species richness decreased. 17 species of Ponto-Caspian complex of seven taxonomic groups were registered: Palludicella articullata, Caspiobdella fadejewi, Jaera sarsi, Echinogammarus ischus, E. warpachowskyi, E. trichiatus, Dikero gammarus haemobaphes, D. villosus, Pontogammarus crassus, P. obesus, Corophium curvispinum, C. nobile, C. robustum, Schizorhynchus scabriusculus, Sch. eudorelloides, Limnomysis benedeni, Paramysis lacustris. Maximal number of Ponto-Caspian species (8) was identified at station 5 (Kiliya), and 148


minimal – at station 1 (Giurgiulesti) only 1 species and at station 16 (Culibul cu Lebede lake) – 2 species.

Fig. 3.8 Comparative analysis of the macrozoobenthos species richness at examination of the Danube downstream in JDS1, JDS2 and JDDS (note: the data for Danube downstream area were taken for JDS1 and JDS2).

Four invasive species of the benthic invertebrates were registered: two of Bivalvia – Corbicula fluminea and Sinanodonta woodiana and two of Gastro poda – Physella acuta and Ferrissia clessiniana. Corbicula fluminea was identified in dredge samples at station 1 (Giurgiulesti) and in the qualitative samples at station 9 (Mila 23). Sinanodonta woodiana was found in the arms near the sea gate at station 7 (Bystryi) and at station 12 (St. George). Physella acuta was found in the macrophyte beds of Sulina arm (station 9 – Mila 23), and Ferrissia clessiniana was registered in the beds of station 14 (Uzlina lake). Abundance Macrozoobenthos abundance at different sites significantly differed. Maximal values were registered at station 1 (Giurgiulesti) – 16412 ind/m2 (Fig. 3.9), which is related to the considerable development of Oligochaeta, 149

СHAPTER 3

particularly Isochaetides michaelseni. Minimal values of abundance were recorded at station 2 (Reni) – 96 ind/m2. The low values of macrozoobenthos abundance were also registered at station 3 (Cheatal) – 182 ind/m2 and station 7 (Bystryi) – 200 ind/m2.

Fig. 3.9 Macrozoobenthos abundance at different stations of Danube delta.

The dominant taxa at the stations of the main channel (station 2 (Reni) and station 3 (Cheatal)) were Gammaridae, presented by the small juvenile individuals, which were impossible to identify to the species level. Oligochaeta prevailed at the stations of the Kiliya, Tulcea, Sulina arms and Isak lake: Limnodrilus claparedeanus, Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri, Isochaetides newaensis, Tubifex tubifex. Gastropoda Lithoglyphus naticoides prevailed in St. George arm. Chironomidae with the dominant species Cricotopus sylvestris and Cladotanytarsus mancus were the most abundant in the Uzlina lake and Culibul cu Lebede lake. Biomass Similar to abundance, macrozoobenthos biomass significantly differed. Maximal values were formed by the mollusks (both Gastropoda and Bi150


valvia) (Fig. 3.10), for instance Esperiana acicularis, Esperiana esperi and Viviparus viviparus, and were recorded at station 9 (Mila 23) – 750,1 g/m2. The significant biomass was also observed at station 11 (Uzlina), where large bivalve mollusks Anodonta anatina, Unio pictorum and Unio tumidus were found. No mollusks were found in the qualitative samples at station 2 (Reni), station 3 (Cheatal) and in the delta lakes. Therefore, the biomass values were rather low there. In terms of biomass dominated Oligochaeta (stations 2, 14, 15), Chironomidae (station 16) or Gammaridae (station 3). The lowest biomass values were registered at station 2 (Reni) – only 0,04 g/m2.

Fig. 3.10 Macrozoobenthos biomass at different stations of Danube delta

Saprobic indices and water quality classes In order to determine the ecological condition, the Zelinka-Marvan index was employed with the reference value of 2,0 for the Lower Danube [SOMMERHÄUSER et al. 2003). The assessment results (Fig. 3.11) were fluctuating within the boundaries of the II-IV classes of the “Good-Poor” scale; a worsening was noted in the areas of urban influence (Giurgiulesti, Kiliya, Vilkove); and the worst condition among the lakes is established for 151

СHAPTER 3

lake Isak – the largest, least running lake without submersed plants overgrowth. The JDS materials provide no figures for saprobity (JDS, 2001), which complicates the comparative assessment; however, overall, the ma terials of all surveys yielded the same results.

Fig. 3.11 Ecological conditions classification: white – II-Good, gray – III-Moderate, black – IV–Poor.

The conducted studies demonstrated that Danube delta macrozoobenthos is highly heterogeneous which is connected with the soil type and flow rate. The comparison of the obtained materials with the data of the previous international studies showed that the received results are quite comparable despite the different methods of sampling. In general, the results of bioindication demonstrate the good ecological state of the most water bodies (II Good). The deterioration was observed at some stations up to III Moderate and lower than IV-V Poor-Bad. It is connected with the use of different assessment methods. Insufficient number of the indicator species of saprobity could have impact on the results accuracy. 152

CHAPTER 4.

HYDROBIOLOGICAL STUDIES OF MODERN STATE OF SMALL TATARU AND ERMAKOV ISLANDS. Between 20 and 25 of May 2018, a hydrobiological survey of the Small Tataru and Ermakov islands, located in the Ukrainian part of Danube Delta, was carried out under the auspices of the WWF Kyiv Department. The main task of the study was to assess the actual state of hydrobiocoeno ses in the internal water bodies of the islands (lakes and channels) according to the structural and functional characteristics of macroinvertebrates (zoobenthos and phytophilous fauna) and ichthyofauna (fish larvae and juveniles) to determine degree of their ecosystems rehabilitation after removal of dams and renewal of hydrological connection with the Danube. The samples were taken at 15 sites of the Small Tataru, Ermakov and Ocha kivskyi islands, which were selected to cover the maximum number of available typical water bodies on the islands: internal lakes, flowing and non-drainage channels, reed beds, etc. The general sampling map is shown оn Fig. 4.1.

Fig. 4.1. Sketch map of sampling sites.

153

СHAPTER 4

A series of hydrological and hydrochemical parameters were measured at each sampling site. The temperature, electrical conductivity, total mine ralization and NaCl content in water were measured with the conductivity/ TDS meter «HANNA HI 9835», the oxygen content was measured with the oxymeter AZHA-101M. The general information on sampling sites and their hydrological-hydrochemical characteristics are given in Tables 4.1 and 4.2, and Fig. 4.2 shows the nitrogen forms ratio in water at different sites. The hydrological-hydrochemical regime was favorable for water biota development: the water temperature varied within 21–26ºС, pH was about neutral (7,12–8,08), the water transparency at all monitoring sites reached the bottom, the depth did not exceed 2,0 m (mainly up to 1,0 m), the bottom sediments were presented by black and gray mud with significant portion of plant residues and detritus. The content of nutrients was relatively low, mostly corresponding to the I–III grade of quality, only in the Small Tataru island the high contents of nitrites (sites N 5 and 8) and nitrates (site N 8) were registered. According to mineralization, water at all stations was fresh and hypohaline, corresponding to I quality class. Such indicators are quite consistent with the period after flood, during which the island water ecosystems are washed by the Danube waters.

Fig. 4.2. Ratio of nitrogen forms at different sampling sites.

154

028059’39,57’’

45020’55,77’’

028059’48,40’’

45020’52,25’’

028059’41,62’’

45020’56,52’’

029000’02,10’’

45021’00,63’’

029000’21,39’’

45021’07,97’’

029000’24,38’’

45021’05,43’’

coordinates

028059’17,56’’

45021’12,36’’

0 shore 45 21’08,46’’ 7 north of the island 028059’22,50’’

6 middle

5 middle

4 western peak

3 middle

2 eastern peak

entrance to 1 the lake

The Danube 8 near the River island

Cross channel

Parallel channel

Lake

Longitudinal channel

of the Water body № Name site

Sampling site t, oC

0,50 grey mud

24,00

1,50 black mud 24,20







Small Tataru island

depth, soil type m

0%

100%

100%

90%

70%

100%

100%

100%

0,19

0,28

0,28

0,29

0,29

0,29

0,27

0,28

0,38

0,58

0,57

0,58

0,56

0,58

0,55

0,56

0,80

1,10

1,10

1,10

1,00

1,00

1,10

1,00

О 2, mg/l

8,08

–

–

7,46

–

7,79

–

13,4

7,51

6,78

4,17

10,34

8,34

5.04

7,56 11,08

vegetation salinity, еН, mS NaCl, % pH cover, % ‰

Field measurements

Table 4.1. Results of field measurements at sampling sites in Small Tataru, Ermakov and Ochakivskyi islands

HYDROBIOLOGICAL STUDIES OF MODERN STATE OF SMALL TATARU AND ERMAKOV ISLANDS

155

156 0,70

45024’49,98’’ 029032’21,57’’ 45025’03,34’’

0 the reed 45 23’39,46’’ 20 within beds 029037’47,72’’

Channel

029027’39,33’’

16 near the island

The Danube River

45025’57,36’’ 029027’47,00’’ 45026’57,06’’

029029’38,86’’

45025’25,92’’

15 middle

14 eastern peak

t, C

0,50

0,50

0,50

1,00

23,00

grey mud

17,70

Ochakivskyi island

grey mud

black mud 22,10

black mud 26,00

black mud 26,00

1,00

25,00

20,50

black mud 25,00

grey mud

grey mud

Ermakov island

soil type o

0,70

1,00

depth, m

coordinates

029032’06,49’’ 45024’49,79’’ 12 northern part 029028’27,55’’ 0 from 45 25’36,22’’ 13 beginning lake 1 029028’33,39’’

m to the 11 200 outlet

10 outlet

Sampling site of the № Name site

Cross channel

Lake 2

Lake 1

Lipovansky channel

Water body

50%

0%

90%

80%

80%

60%

90%

50%

0,49

0,18

0,29

0,31

0,32

0,33

0,25

0,25

0,99

0,36

0,59

0,63

0,63

0,67

0,50

0,51

1,90

0,70

1,10

1,20

1,30

1,40

0,90

0,90

О 2, mg/l

6,58

–

7,17

–

7,79

7,71

–

5,31

12,2

4,13

5,44

6,35

4,18

3,15

7,12 10,53

field measurements vegetation salinity, еН, mS NaCl, % pH cover, % ‰

СHAPTER 4

0,007 І 0,009 ІІ 0,092 І 0,108

0,040 І 0,008 ІІ 0,068 І 0,116

3

3

ІІІ 187 І

254 І

quality class

mineraliza- mg/dm tion (dry residue) quality class

рН ІІ

І 16

Colourity, ºCr-Co-scales 16

І

7,40

І

241

ІІІ

0,147

0,480

ІІ

0,383

IV

0,070

І

0,027

5

8

ІІ

7,90

І

197

ІІІ

0,150

1,387

IV

1,329

IV

0,051

І

0,007

8

19

І

7,16

І

255

І

0,005

0,242

І

0,189

III

0,013

І

0,040

10

27

ІІ

7,55

І

251

ІІ

0,042

0,168

І

0,053

II

0,008

ІІ

0,107

12

21

ІІ

7,59

І

298

ІІ

0,040

0,063

І

0,044

II

0,006

І

0,013

13

sampling sites

Ermakov island

26

І

7,08

І

265

ІІІ

0,055

0,249

І

0,189

II

0,007

І

0,053

15

28

І

7,13

І

409

ІІІ

0,080

0,142

І

0,092

II

0,010

І

0,040

20

Ochakivskyi island sampling sites

Note: indicators highlighted by grey correspond to the maximum class of water pollution (IV α-mesosaprobic polytrophic waters).

20

7,70

7,23

рН

quality class

3

mg P/dm

0,093

Pinorg ІІІ

mg N/dm

quality class

mg N/dm

3

quality class

mg N/dm

3

quality class

mg N/dm

3

1

3

sampling sites

0,080

Ninorg

NO3-

NO2-

NH4+

Indicators

Small Tataru island

Table 4.2. Values of hydrochemical indicators (based on the results of laboratory tests) and their conformity to the quality classes according to the [METODYKA… 1998].


157

СHAPTER 4

4.1. MACROINVERTEBRATES Over the research period, totally 108 species of invertebrate macrofauna were registered, the most widely presented were Insecta (59 species), Molluska (18) and Oligochaeta (17). Crustaceans were presented by 6 species only. Maximal species richness was character for the water bodies and water courses of the Small Tataru island – 81. On the Ermakov island 70 species were found and only 22 species – in the reed beds of Ochakivskyi island (Annex, Table 4.3). Table 4.3. Taxonomic structure of invertebrate macrofauna in hydrobiocoenoses of the Kiliya Danube Delta islands in May 2018 Taxonomic unit Bivalvia Gastropoda Oligochaeta Hirudinea Corophiidae Gammaridae Isopoda Mysidacea Odonata Ephemeroptera Coleoptera Heteroptera Lepidoptera Trichoptera Chironomidae Ceratopogonidae Chaoboridae Ephydridae Psychodidae Total

158

Small Tataru island 4 9 13 7 – 1 2 1 4 2 4 5 1 4 21 1 1 – 1 81

Ermakov island 2 115 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 4 1 4 18 1 – 1 – 70

Ochakivskyi island – 7 2 1 – 2 1 – 1 – 6 – – – 2 – – – – 22

Total 4 14 17 8 1 2 2 1 4 2 11 6 1 6 25 1 1 1 1 108


Among all the species of macroinvertebrates, only few were found on all the investigated islands: the mollusks Gyralus albus (O. F. Müller), Plano rbarius corneus (Linne) and Viviparus contectus (Millet), the oligochaetes Nais communis Piguet and Stylaria lacustris (Linnaeus), the isopods Asellus aquaticus (Linne), the beetles Haliplus ruficollis (De Geer) and the larvae of the buzzer midge Polypedilum nubeculosum (Meigen). The aquatic macrofauna on the islands mostly consisted of the freshwater species (96%). The Ponto-Caspian complex was presented by leeches Cystobranchus fasciatus (Piscicola fasciata) Kollar and isopods Jaera sarsi Valkanov, found in the weedy channels of Small Tataru island, Chelicorophium curvispinum (G.O. Sars), found among drifting macroinvertebrates in the mouth of the Lipovansky branch, which runs from Ermakov island into the Danube River (site N 10), and mysids Limnomysis benedeni Czerniavsky, found in the channels on both islands. It should be noted that the findings of Ponto-Caspian species (except mysids) were sporadic and occasional. A Sino-Indian species, the mussel Sinanodonta woodiana Lea and the oligochaete Branchiura sowerbyi Beddard have been recorded respectively in the channels of Small Tataru and Ermakov islands. Invertebrate macrofauna of the water bodies of Small Tataru island. In the water bodies of the Small Tataru island 81 invertebrates’ species were found (Fig. 4.2), including 59 species of benthic and 55 species of phytophilous fauna (Table 4.4). In general, macrozoobenthos and phytophilous fauna in channels were more abundant than in the lakes due to the higher number of species in each taxonomic group. The overall species richness of macroinvertebrates in the channels was 1.5 times higher than in the lake (see Table 4.4). No larvae of butterflies (Lepidoptera) and Chaoborida were found in the channels, and Gammaridae, Mysidae, Coleoptera and Psychodidae were absent in the samples from the lake. Mollusks in the island water bodies were presented by bivalves and gastro pods. The adult specimens of S. woodiana and Unio pictorum (Linnaeus) have been found in the channel nearshore areas. The representatives of fam. Sphaeriidae, Musculium lacustre (O. F. Müller) and Pisidium milium Held have been registered in both channels and lakes. The gastropods were presented 159

СHAPTER 4

by the pulmonary and branchial forms. Such species as Gyraulus albus (O. F. Muller), Bithynia tentaculata (Linnaeus) and Planorbarius corneus (Linne) occurred the most frequently and massively.

Fig. 4.2 Taxonomic structure of invertebrate macrofauna in water bodies and water courses of the Small Tataru island.

Among Annelida (the segmented worms) the oligochaetes Oligochaeta and leeches Hirudinea were registered in the island hydrobiocenoses. The most widespread and abundant out of 13 Oligochaeta were Stylaria lacustris (Linnaeus) and Ophidonais serpentina (O. F. Muller) (Naididae) and species of the genus Limnodrilus (Tubificidae). The leeches occurred sporadically. In the most swamped areas of the channels, the European medicinal leech Hirudo medicinalis Linnaeus has been found. Crustaceans in the water bodies and water courses of the Small Tataru island were presented by one species of freshwater hoppers, Niphargus pota mophylus Birstein, two species of isopods, among which Asellus aquaticus (Linne) was the most common, while another species Jaera sarsi has been 160


found only once in the phytophilous fauna of the channels. The Mysidae were presented by Limnomysis benedeni Czerniavsky, which occurred spora dically in the channels with abundance up to 500 ind/m2. Table 4.4. Taxonomic structure of macrozoobenthos and phytophilous fauna in the water bodies and water courses of Small Tataru island (ZB – macrozo obenthos, PF – phytophilous fauna, MF – macrofauna in general). Taxonomic unit

Channels

Lakes

Total

ZB

PF

MF

ZB

PF

MF

ZB

PF

Bivalvia

4

–

4

2

1

2

4

1

Gastropoda

4

6

7

3

6

6

6

8

Oligochaeta

9

4

11

8

5

10

11

6

Hirudinea

3

5

7

1

1

2

4

5

Gammaridae

–

1

1

–

–

–

–

1

Isopoda

1

2

2

–

1

1

1

2

Mysidae

1

–

1

–

–

–

1

–

Odonata

1

3

4

2

1

2

3

3

Ephemeroptera

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

2

Coleoptera

2

3

4

–

–

–

2

3

Heteroptera

2

2

4

–

2

2

2

3

Lepidoptera

–

–

–

1

1

1

1

1

Trichoptera

2

3

4

2

3

3

3

3

Chironomidae

10

12

16

8

10

12

16

16

Ceratopogonidae

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Chaoboridae

–

–

–

1

–

1

1

–

Psychodidae Total

1 43

– 44

1 69

– 30

– 34

– 45

1 59

– 55

Insects were diverse both in the island lakes and channels (photo 5). The Chironomidae larvae prevailed by species richness (totally 21 species, respectively 16 species in phytophilous fauna and macrozoobenthos). 161

СHAPTER 4

Species of gen. Chironomus were the most common in this group in benthos, while the phytophilous fauna was dominated by Cricotopus sylvestris (F.) and Parachironomus pararostratus (Lenz). Among other insects we registered five species of water bugs (Heteroptera); dragonflies (Odonata), beetles (Coleoptera) and caddis flies (Trichoptera) comprised four species each. The representative of the latter, Leptocerus tineiformes Curtis, constantly and massively occurred both in macrozoobenthos and phytophilous fauna. The larvae of Anax imperator Leach (Emperor dragonfly), the Red Book of Ukraine species has been registered in the most stagnant channel. The abundance of macrozoobenthos in the water bodies and water courses of the Small Tataru island varied from «high» to «middle» level of development, which respectively corresponded to polytrophic and eutrophic waters (Table 4.5). The biomass varied from «moderate» to «low» level corresponding to eutrophic and mesotrophic waters. The quantitative indexes of macrozoobenthos in the channels were higher than in the lake, while the opposite was observed in phytophilous fauna: its abundance and biomass was higher in the lake than in the channels. Table 4.5. Characteristics of macroinvertebrate communities in the water bodies and water courses of Small Tataru island. Indicators Channels Lakes Total Macrozoobenthos 6,00-22,31 1,30-8,00 Number, th/ ind/m2 7,61 10,42 3,87 The level of development (eutroabove medium high (polytrophic) medium (trophity) by abundance phic) (eutrophic) 26,46-225,76 3,78-19,28 2 Biomass, g/m 80,81 133,14 11,04 medium (eutro- low (mesotrophic) medium (eutroTrophicity level by biomass phic) phic) Phytophilous fauna 1,23-1,55 1,94-2,91 Abundance, th. ind/kg 1,80 1,39 2,43 1,01-5,05 2,80-12,06 Biomass, g/kg 4,77 3,00 7,43

162


In terms of abundance macrozoobenthos in the lake was dominated by oligochaetes, while in the channels dominated Chironomidae larvae (Fig. 4.4a). In terms of biomass macrozoobenthos in the lakes was dominated by insect larvae (Chironomidae + Trichoptera), and in the channels dominated mollusks (particularly, Unionidae). Oligochaetes prevailed in terms of abundance in the phytophilous fauna of both channels and lake, while mollusks dominated by biomass in the lake, and in the channels prevailed the Trichoptera larvae (Fig. 4.4b).

Fig. 4.4 Taxonomic structure of macrozoobenthos (a) and phytophilous fauna (b) in terms of abundance (N) and biomass (B) on Small Tataru island

Invertebrate macrofauna in the water bodies and water courses of the Ermakov island. The macrofauna of Ermakov island was presented by 70 species of invertebrates, of which 46 in macrozoobenthos, 42 in phytophilous fauna and 21 in drift samples, collected at the inflow of the Lipovansky branch into the Danube river (site N 10) (Fig. 4.5, Table 4.6). The species richness of phytophilous fauna and benthic macroinvertebrates in the lakes was higher than in the channels. There were no Hirudinea, Gammaridae, Mysidae, Odonata and Lepidoptera larvae, whereas in the lakes beetles Coleoptera and flies Ephydridae have not been registered. 163

СHAPTER 4

Fig. 4.5 Taxonomic structure of invertebrate macrofauna in water bodies and water courses of Ermakov island.

The drifting macroinvertebrates (site N 10) were mostly presented by insect larvae, mainly the Coleoptera larvae and Chironomidae larvae, besides four species of pulmonary gastropods has been registered as well. It is important to mention that six species, namely Lymnaea auricularia (Linne), Cheliocorophium curvispinum, Driops and Enochrus beetles, Sigara falleni (Fieber) and Cladotanytarsus mancus (Walker) larvae have been found only in the drift and were not registered in other macroinvertebrate communities of the island. Mollusks in Ermakov island were presented by 12 species. Compared to the Small Tataru island, the Unionidae were absent, whereas same Spheriidae have been found: Musculium lacustre and Pisidium milium. Among 10 species of gastropods, Gyralus albus, Bithynia tentaculata, Planorbarius corneus and Planorbis planorbis (Linne) were the most frequent in all types of the water bodies, and Valvata pulchela Studer was present in the benthic communities of both channels and lakes. 164


Table 4.6. Taxonomic structure of macrozoobenthos and phytophilous fauna in the water bodies and water courses of the Ermakov island (ZB – macrozoo benthos, PF – phytophilous fauna, MF – macrofauna in general) Taxonomic unit Bivalvia

Channels ZB 2

PF –

Lakes

Total

MF 2

ZB 1

PF –

MF 1

ZB 2

PF –

Drift

7

8

7

7

4

–

Gastropoda

6

4

6

5

Oligochaeta

8

4

1–

8

5

10

12

6

3

Hirudinea Corophiidae Gammaridae

–

– – –

– – –

1

2

2

1

2

–

– –

– 1

– 1

– –

– 1

1 –

Isopoda Mysidacea Odonata

1

1 – –

1 – –

1

1

1

1

1

–

1 –

– 1

1 1

1 –

– 1

– –

Ephemeroptera Coleoptera

–

1 4

1 4

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

–

–

–

1

4

4

Heteroptera

–

2

2

–

2

2

–

3

3

Lepidoptera

–

–

–

1

1

1

1

1

–

Trichoptera Chironomidae

–

1 10

3

4

4

3

4

–

9

1 6

10

9

15

14

10

5

Ceratopogonidae

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

–

Ephydridae

1

– 24

1 39

–

–

–

1

–

–

33

35

49

46

42

21

– – – –

Total

29

Annelida included 15 species of Oligochaeta and 2 species of Hirudinea. The oligochaetes Stylaria lacustris and Ophidonais serpentina (O. F. Muller) have been recorded in all biotopes of the island, and in some cases their number reached 35 th. ind/kg in the plant thickets and 6 th. ind/m2 in the bottom communities. Among Oligochaeta in macrozoobenthos prevailed Tubificidae (Limnodrilus sp., Tubifex tubifex (OF Muller)). Besides, 165

СHAPTER 4

Branchiura sowerbyi has been found in benthos of the Lipovansky branch. This is a species of the alien Sino-Indian fauna, that has been living in the Danube Delta for a long time (reliably known from the 1940-ies [FINOGENOVA 1968]). The leeches Glossiphonia complanata (Linne) and Glossiphonia heteroclita (Linne) were registered both in the bottom communities and within plant thickets of the studied lakes. Crustaceans were presented by amphipods Cheliocorophium curvispinum in the drift and juvenile Gammaridae. Asellus aquaticus was also widespread on the island, and mysid Limnomysis benedeni Czerniavsky has been found in macrozobenthos in the channels. Insects were the most diversely presented group of macrofauna both in channels and lakes of the Ermakov island – totally 37 species were registered, maximal belonged to Chironomidae larvae, among which the most widespread and dominant were species of the gen. Chironomus and Parachironomus varus (Goetghebuer). There were also six species of beetles, two of which, Driops sp. and Enochrus sp., have been registered only in the drift samples; Acilius sulcatus (L.) and Cybister lateralimarginalis (Deg.) were found in the phytophilous fauna; Hydrophilus piceus Linnaeus and Haliplus ruficollis (De Geer) occurred among vegetation and macrozoobenthos in the channels. The most frequently occurring Hemiptera within the phyto philous fauna were Plea minutissima Leach and Corixa punctata (Illiger). Trichoptera larvae Ecnomus tenellus (Rambur), Leptocerus tineiformes Curtis and Tricholeiochiton fagesii (Guinard) were the typical in the benthic and phytophilous communities. Abundance of the benthic macroinvertebrates in the lakes was higher than in the channels, and corresponded to «very high» (hypertrophic waters) and «high» (polytrophic waters) levels of macrozoobenthos development. The biomass varied from «below medium» (in the lakes) to «above medium» (in the channels) development level, which corresponded to eutrophic and mesotrophic waters (Table 4.7). Oligochaetes prevailed in terms of abundance in benthos of all the water bodies, while the mollusks, particularly the gastropods, prevailed in terms of biomass (Fig. 4.6, a). 166


Table 4.7 Characteristics of macroinvertebrate communities in water bodies and water courses of the Ermakov island. Indicators

Channels

Lakes

Total

Macrozoobenthos Number, th. ind/m2

3,40-22,30 10,55

3,76-63,70 22.85

15,94

The level of development (trophity) by number

high (polytrophic)

very high (hypertrophic)

high (polytrophic)

Biomass, g/m2

12,48-358,28 157,32

7,05-79,26 35,15

104,96

The level of development (trophicity) by biomass

above the medium below the medium medium (eutrophic) (eutrophic) (mesotrophic) Phytophilous fauna

Number, th. ind/kg Biomass, g/kg

8,83-46,92 27,59 16,16-41,42 26,20

5,26-41,68 28,28 14,89-49,36 32,13

28,01 28,57

Fig. 4.6 Taxonomic structure of macrozoobenthos (a) and phytophilous fauna (b) by abundance (N) and biomass (B) on the Ermakov island.

167

СHAPTER 4

The abundance and biomass of the phytophilous fauna in the lakes and channels did not significantly differ (Table 7). As in the benthos, Oligochaetes prevailed in terms of abundance in the vegetation, they also dominated in terms biomass in the lakes, while the Chironomidae larvae prevailed in the channels (Fig. 4.6, b). Macrofauna of the channel in the reed beds of the Ochakivskyi island. In a channel (duct) in the reed beds of the Ochakivskyi island 22 species of macroinvertebrates were found (Fig. 4.7). The most diverse were Gastropoda (7 species), among which dominated Pulmonata Physella acuta Draparnaud, Planorbarius corneus (O. F. Muller), Planorbis planorbis (Linne), Acroloxis lacustris (Linne) and Gyraulus albus. Of Pectinibranchia were registered Bithynia troschelii (Paasch) and Viviparus contectus (Millet).

Fig. 4. 7. The taxonomic structure of invertebrate macrofauna in the channel in the reed beds of the Ochakivskyi island.

Annelida were presented by two widespread species of Oligochaeta (Stylaria lacustris and Nais communis) and Hirudinea Haementeria costata (Muller). Crustacea were presented by Niphargus potamophylus Birstein, juvenile Gammaridae and Asellus aquaticus. 168


Insects were characterised by considerable diversity of Coleoptera (6 species). Besides, larvae of two Chironomidae species (Einfeldia longipes (Staeger) and Polypedilum nubeculosum (Meigen) and Odonata Anax imperator have also been found. Gastropods dominated in benthos in terms of both abundance and biomass. The total values (2,7 th. ind/m2 and 391,56 g/m2) reached respectively the «medium» and «high» level of development, which corresponded to eutrophic and polytrophic waters in terms of number and biomass. Comparative characteristics of macrofauna. The state of macrofauna was analyzed by comparison of the hydrobiocoenoses characteristics of the Small Tataru and Ermakov islands, as well as with other similar Danube Delta water bodies in current period, and also with retrospective materials. Comparison of the species richness of macroinvertebrates in the islands showed that the macrofauna on the Small Tataru Island is more diverse than that on the Ermakov island (81 species vs. 70) (Table 4.8). The Small Tataru had more number of Bivalvia, Hirudinea, Isopoda, Odonata, Ephemeroptera, Heteroptera and Chironomidae species, whereas on the Ermakov island more species of Gastropoda, Oligochaeta and Coleoptera were registered. The Sørensen similarity index amounted to 0,64; 48 species, that is 47% of the total species composition (103 species) were common to both islands. Maximal number of common species was registered in three biggest groups: Gastropoda – 7 species of 12 (58%); Oligochaeta – 11 species of 16 (65%); and Chironomidae, 14 species of 25 (56%). More than one third of the macrofauna species of each island (22 on Ermakov and 31 on the Small Tataru) was not registered on the other one. Maximal number of these species was presented by Coleoptera (5 species), Oligochaeta and Chironomidae (4 species each) on Ermakov, and Chironomidae (7 species), Hirudinea (5 species) and Odonata (4 species) on the Small Tataru. Comparison of the species composition in each type of the water body showed that the species richness in the lakes of both islands was generally close (45 and 49 species (see Table 4.8), whereas in the channels on the 169

СHAPTER 4

Small Tataru island it was 1,4 times richer than on Ermakov (69 vs. 49). The Sørensen index (Table 4.9) showed similarity of the species composition in these water bodies, which was maximal in the lakes (0,66) due to significant number of common species (31), which accounts for 49% of total species richness in the lakes (63). Table 4.8. Taxonomic structure of macrofauna of Small Tataru and Ermakov islands.

Taxonomic unit Bivalvia

Small Tataru island channels lakes total 4 2 4

Ermakov island channels lakes total 2 1 2

Gastropoda

7

6

9

6

8

10

Oligochaeta

11

10

13

10

10

15

Hirudinea

7

2

7

–

2

2

Corophiidae

–

–

–

–

–

1

Gammaridae

1

–

1

–

1

1

Isopoda

2

1

2

1

1

1

Mysidacea

1

–

1

–

1

1

Odonata

4

2

4

–

1

1

Ephemeroptera

2

2

2

1

1

1

Coleoptera

4

–

4

4

–

6

Heteroptera

4

2

5

2

2

4

Lepidoptera

–

1

1

–

1

1

Trichoptera

4

3

4

1

4

4

Chironomidae

16

12

21

10

15

18

Ceratopogonidae

1

1

1

1

1

1

Chaoboridae

–

1

1

–

–

–

Ephydridae

–

–

–

1

–

1

Psychodidae

1

–

1

–

–

–

Total:

69

45

81

39

49

70

170


Table 4.9. Similarity of macrofauna species composition (by the Sørensen index) of the hydrobiocoenoses of the Delta islands. Ermakov Small Tataru Ermakov Small Tataru Type of water body island, island, island, lakes island, lakes channels channels Ochakivskyi island, channels 0,36 0,22 0,23 0,15 Ochakivskyi island, channel * 0,54 0,55 0,50 Small Tataru island, channels * * 0,55 0,58 Ermakov island, lakes * * * 0,66

In turn, though the level of similarity for channels was quite high (0,55), but lower than that of lakes. The number of common species was only 29, which amounted to 37% of total species number in the channels (79), while 41 distinct species (60% of total species number in the island channels) were found in the macrofauna of Small Tataru channels, and only 10 peculiar species were found in the macrofauna of Ermakov channels (25% of total species number on the island). The species composition of macroinvertebrates in the channel among the reed beds of Ochakivskyi island was of quite low similarity to the macrofauna of other islands (Sorensen coefficients 0,15-0,36), it was most similar (0,36) to the channels of Ermakov island. The structure of macroinvertebrate complexes on Ochakivskyi island can be an example of what happens to a hydroecosystem after islands transform into the reed beds: the species richness significantly decreases, the structural transformation takes place with the change of dominant groups up to their vanishing, particularly crustaceans, insects, bivalve mollusks (see Fig. 4.7, Table. 4.3). It should be noted that the processes of gradual conversion of lake ecosystems into marshes, swamps and dry land are natural for a river delta. Only one publication «Hydrofauna of the Danube lower reaches within the boundaries of Ukraine» [POLISCHUK 1974] is available among the retrospective studies of fauna in the water bodies of the Danube Delta islands. A small section in this book is devoted to these water objects. Unfortunately, it is unknown which islands and at what scale, were investigated. It is to point out that according to this monograph, the macrofauna of invertebrates on the 171

СHAPTER 4

delta islands was presented by 44 species. The most studied by V.V. Polischuk [1974] was the fauna of beetles (the aquatic and those inhabiting wetlands) and mollusks. It is important to note that the study of beetles requires special capturing methods that we did not use, and the information on this group in our samples is therefore quite limited. The difference in the collected material (21 species in V. V. Polishchuk [1974] versus 9 in our collections) could be the evidence of insufficient study of this group in the island water bodies. Among 12 species of gastropods listed by V. V. Polischuk [1974], we have registered 11 (except Lymnaea truncatula). The representatives of other macroinvertebrate groups (the oligochaetes Stylaria lacustris (Linnaeus), leeches, bugs), which are mentioned in the species list of island hydrofauna dated on the 1960-ies, were presented in our samples in almost complete range. We have also compared the species composition of invertebrate macrofauna on the Small Tataru and Ermakov islands with the hydrobiocoenoses of other water bodies of the Danube Delta that we have investigated in the recent period. We selected water bodies and water courses which have certain similarity by the hydromorphological characteristics. For example, in May 2017 we investigated the internal delta lakes Babina and Merhei located in the Sulina delta, have similar type of overgrowing (the submerged vege tation), similar depths, and are preserved in their natural state. There were no similar freshwater lakes in the list of the water bodies within the Ukrai nian part of the Danube Delta. The close morphometric features and some other indicators are characteristic for the Anankin Kut lake, a water body that has separated from the sea about 50 years ago, is heavily overgrown with floating-leaf plants (European caltrop and European white water lily), and is connected with the Danube arms by some small narrow channel (Anankin Kut channel). To some extent, these channels can be considered as similar to the channels of the Small Tataru and Ermakov islands. The materials of investigation of Anankin Kut lake and Anankin Kut channel, which were carried out in June 2017, have been taken for comparison. The taxonomic structure of invertebrate macrofauna in Merhei, Babina and Anankin Kut lakes and a duct connecting the latter with the Vostochnyi branch, are given in Table 4.10. 172


Table 4.10. Taxonomic structure of invertebrate macrofauna in lakes Merhei, Babina, Anankin Kut and Anankin Kut channel. Anankin Kut Anankin Kut Taxonomic unit Merhei lake Babina lake lake channel Bivalvia 1 1 – 3 Gastropoda 7 7 2 9 Oligochaeta 10 15 11 11 Hirudinea 1 – 5 7 Corophiidae – – – 3 Gammaridae 1 1 1 2 Izopoda – – 1 1 Cumacea – – – 1 Mysidacea 1 – 1 – Odonata 1 – 1 2 Ephemeroptera 1 1 2 2 Coleoptera – – 1 5 Heteroptera – – 4 6 Lepidoptera – 1 – 1 Trichoptera 4 3 1 3 Chironomidae 14 19 18 20 Ceratopogonidae 1 1 1 1 Ephydridae – – 1 1 Total 42 49 50 78

The general level of species richness (42–49 species) and the taxonomic structure in all the lakes were quite similar and comparable with those of the Small Tataru and Ermakov lakes (45–49 species) (see Table 4.8, 4.10). The species richness of channel coming out of the Anankin Kut lake was higher than in the channels of the Small Tataru island and especially Ermakov island (2 times higher than in the latter) (see Table 4.8, 4.10). The Sørensen coefficient analysis has shown that the highest similarity of macroinvertebrates species composition is characteristic for the lakes of the Small Tataru and the non-island water bodies, as well as for the channels of Small Tataru island and the Anankin Kut channel (Table 4.11). The highest 173

СHAPTER 4

percentage of common species was recorded in macrofauna of the island lakes and Babina lake: respectively 28 species (42%) and 26 species (36%) on Small Tataru and Ermakov, whereas macrofauna of Small Tataru channels had a highest number and percentage of common species with the Anankin Kut channel (39 species, 36%). The similarity of macrofauna species composition in various water bodies was caused by the high percentage of common insects and oligochaetes species. Table 4.11. Species composition similarity (according to the Sorensen index) of macrofauna in the island and non-island lakes and channels. Anankin Kut Anankin Kut Water body type Merhei lake Babina lake lake channel Ochakivskyi island, channel Ermakov island, channels Small Tataru island, channels Ermakov island, lakes Small Tataru island, lakes

0,09

0,14

0,11

0,16

0,40

0,47

0,45

0,44

0,45

0,44

0,51

0,53

0,51

0,53

0,48

0,49

0,57

0,59

0,46

0,54

The generalized dendrogram of the species composition similarity and the species number of the invertebrate communities are shown in Figure 4.8. The identified clusters, in our opinion, are quite logical and understandable, there are a few of them. There are three with maximal degree of the species composition similarity (marked by blue), namely: the lakes of Small Tataru and Ermakov islands; the system of the Anankin Kut lake and Anankin channel; and lakes Merhei and Babina of the Sulina Delta. The separate cluster is formed by the channels and lakes of the Ukrainian islands (light green). High similarity was determined for the Sulina delta lakes and Anankin Kut lake with Anankin channel (pale yellow). All these water bodies form the general pool with high similarity of the macrofauna species composition, 174


about 50% and above. Only the channel in the reed beds of the Ochakivskyi island stands apart from the pool (we consider it as an object for compa rison, a model of a drying island water body, analogous to the situation at the time of the islands being embanked). It was also characterized by the lowest species richness, while the species number in all other hydrobiocoenoses was much higher.

Fig. 4.8. Similarity dendrogram of the species composition and species richness of invertebrate macrofauna.

The quantitative indices of macrozoobenthos and the corresponding trophity levels according to the [METODY… 2006] are given in Table 4.12. The macrozoobenthos abundance and biomass in the non-island lakes corresponded to the meso-eutrophic waters, and in the Anankin Kut lake and its channel the abundance reached the level corresponding to the hypertrophic waters, whereas the biomass corresponded to mesotrophic (Table 4.12). 175

СHAPTER 4

Table 4.12. Quantitative indices and the trophic levels of macrozoobenthos Abundance Biomass Water bodies development level level th. ind/m2 development g/m2 (trophity) (trophity) Small Tataru island Ermakov island

lakes

3,87

channels

10,42

lakes

22,85

channels

10,55

Channel of Ochakivskyi island

2,70

Lake Merhei

2,00

Lake Babina

8,06

Lake Anankin Kut

25,29

Channel Anankin Kut

29,02

medium (eutrophic) high (polytrophic) very high (hypertrophic) high (polytrophic) middle (eutrophic) below the medium (mesotrophic) above the medium (eutrophic) very high (hypertrophic) very high (hypertrophic)

11,04 133,14 35,15 157,32 391,56 50,39 13,33 15,13 31,80

low (mesotrophic) medium (eutrophic) below the medium (mesotrophic) above the medium (eutrophic) high (polytrophic) middle (eutrophic) low (mesotrophic) below the medium (mesotrophic) below the medium (mesotrophic)

Summarizing the above-mentioned material, it should be stated that the rich and diverse aquatic invertebrate macrofauna has been recorded on the Small Tataru and Ermakov islands (respectively 81 and 70 species), which were generally characterized by high similarity of the species composition. The species richness of macroinvertebrates on the Small Tataru island was higher than on the Ermakov island due to higher species number in the island channels. Species richness and the species structure of macroinvertebrate complexes in the island water bodies were quite comparable to those recorded in other hydrobiocoenoses of the Danube Delta (except the channel of the Ochakivskyi island). The channels of the Small Tataru island were characterized by somewhat lesser species number than the non-island the Anankin Kut channel and rather high similarity of species composition, no concern regarding the condition of the investigated invertebrate communities is needed. The Ermakov 176


island channels were characterized by significant overgrowth and slow flow, sometimes resembling the dead branches with standing water. Given that the water levels during our studies were relatively high, the stagnant phenomena with high deficiency of oxygen, which can cause asphyxia of the aquatic orga nisms, could be even more probable in the drought period. So, in our opinion, it is important to ensure further intensive washing of the islands by the Da nube water. On the whole, the materials obtained indicate the «natural» current state of the water bodies on the Small Tataru and Ermakov islands according to the invertebrate macrofauna indices in spring period, that is the achievement of the goals set by breaching the dikes.

4.2. Ichthyofauna Small Tataru island. The larvae and juveniles of 12 fish species of four families were found in the island water bodies and water courses. The species composition in the considered biotopes was significantly differPhoto 4.1 Larvae and juveniles of ent (Table 4.13). The general list comprises ide Idus idus (L.) from the Danube 13 species, of which the ide Idus idus (L.) was River near Small Tataru island found in the Danube arm adjacent to the northern side of the island, but did not occur

Photo 4.2 Dominant species of Small Tataru Island water bodies: roach Rutilus rutilus (left), sunbleak Leucaspius delineatus (right)

177

СHAPTER 4

Photo 4.3 Alien species: stone moroko Pseudorasbora parva (left), chinese sleeper Perсcottus glenii (right)

in its inland water bodies (photo 4.1).The most common species in all the internal water bodies and water courses of the island were roach, common rudd, sunbleak, silver bream and common bream. Their relative numbers varied depending on the habitat: for example, roach (photo 4.2) prevailed in the lakes, sunbleak prevailed in the overgrown shallows covered by duckweed. The invasive Far-East species, stone moroko and shinese sleeper (photo 4.3), also prevailed there. The early juveniles of European bitterling were abundant in the channels (photo 4.4). In view of the spawning substrate this species is ostracophilous: it lays eggs in the mantle cavity of bivalve mollusks, which also occurred in the channel. It means that there is no stagnation in the bottom layer of water and bottom sediments of the channels, at least in spring, and the oxygen regime is favorable for the development of invertebrates and ichthyofauna. The early juvenile European asp is rheophilous, it was found in the channels only, which indicates that during the spring flood these water courses get good Photo 4.4 Ostracophile species: European flowage that facilitates spawning of bitterling Rhodeus amаrus the riverine fishes. The asp juveniles 178


were also caught in the Danube arm adjacent to the northern side of the island. The young specimens in the arm were mainly presented by roach and ide – typical riverine species, which juveniles were not registered in the internal island waters. In the Danube we have not found limnophilous (lacustrine and lacustrine-riverine) species such as rudd, sunbleak, bitterling etc., which were widespread in the island water bodies. Table 4.13 Species composition of the early juvenile fish in the waters of the Small Tataru island Relative number, % №

Taxonomic unit

Cyprinidae 1. Idus idus L. – Ide 2. Rutilus rutilus L. – Roach Scardinius erythrophthalmus L. – 3. Common rudd 4. Alburnus alburnus L. – Bleak Leucaspius delineatus Heckel – 5. Sunbleak 6. Blicca bjoerkna L. – Silver bream 7. Abramis brama L. – Common bream 8. Aspius aspius L. – European asp Rhodeus amаrus Bloch – European 9. bitterling Pseudorasbora parva Temminck et 10 Schlegel – Stone moroko Percidae 11 Perca fluviatilis L. – European perch Odontobutidae Perсcottus glenii Dybowski – Chi12 nese sleeper Gobiidae Proterorhinus semilunaris Heckel – 13 Western tubenose goby

Channels

Lakes

Overgrown shallows

The Danube

12,8

47,8

0,2

15,8 77,2

0,7

11,3

0,1

-

0,2

2,6

-

-

61,8

26,1

94,1

-

8,9 1,2 1,6

4,3 1,7 -

2,0 0,2 -

0,6 2,9 3,5

10,0

-

0,1

-

-

-

3,2

-

2,6

3,5

-

-

-

-

0,1

-

0,2

2,6

-

-

179

СHAPTER 4

According to the local fishermen, during the spring flood many fish species enter the island waters to spawn, particularly carp Сурrіnus carpio L., catfish Silurus glanis L., pikeperch Sander lucioperca L.; several fishes permanently occur and reproduce on the island: pike Еsox lucіus L., crucian and Prussian carps Carassius sp., tench Тinca tinсa L. Sometimes the Pontic shad Alosa pontica Eichwald enters the island waters, but was not observed to spawn here. Thus, the list of fishes that use the island waters as spawning area comprises at least 19 species, many of which are the permanent inhabitants of the island hydroecosystems. In summer during the drought, strong drop in water level and rapid decrease in spawning areas usually happen. This can lead to suffocation of fingerlings and adult specimens and their predation by birds, as a result of facilitating the access to prey and reducing the opportunities for fish to shelter. That is why in order to ensure the fish survival, it is necessary to maintain flowage of the island channels even over the drought periods. Ermakov island. In the water bodies and water courses of the Ermakov island, larvae and juveniles of 15 fish species of five families were identified (Table 4.14). Similar to the Small Tataru island, this value can be considered quite indicator, given such short term of the research. For comparison, we identified only 7 fish species in the lakes and water courses within the Sulina delta (lakes Babina, Matita, Puiu and the adjacent channels) in May 2017, using just the same methods.

Photo 4.5 Reophilic species: European chub Squalius cephalus (left), asp Aspius aspius (right)

180


Photo 4.6 Ukrainian stickleback Pungitius platygaster and its larvae from a Ermakov inland lake

Photo 4.7 Commercial species: common bream Abramis brama (left), Prussian and crucian carps Carassius sp. (right)

Maximal relative number was character for roach, which prevailed in the flowing sections, and sunbleak, that formed the basis of the early juveniles fish communities in the lacustrine biotopes. The riverine and riverine-lacustrine species such as chub, common bream and European asp were noted in the flowing areas only, though their number was Photo 4.8 European perch Perca fluviatilis, rather low (photo 4.5). a predator of the island water bodies. 181

СHAPTER 4

In particular, the single individuals of chub occurred only at inflow of the Lipovansky arm into Danube (sampling site N 10): some individuals were found in the sandy shallows, one larva was also caught with a planktonic net at the confluence of the Lipovansky arm with the Danube River. Other species were found both in the channels and lakes (European rudd, crucian and Prussian carps, perch, Chinese sleeper), some species were caught in the lakes only, namely bitterling, stone moroko, Ukrainian stickleback (photo 4.6), western tubenose goby. The occurrence and relative number of the early juvenile common breams were lower than on the Small Tataru, while larvae and fry of another commercially valuable species the Prussian carp (photo 4.7) were abundant on Ermakov. Portion of the juvenile perch (photo 4.8) in catches was lower compared to the Small Tataru, though it should be noted that the schools of its juveniles counting 10–15 individuals which actively avoided the sampling equipment, were visually observed in the flowing areas of the island. The relative number of bitterling larvae was significantly lower than on the Small Tataru, which was probably connected with lesser number of bivalve mollusks – its spawning substrate. Table 4.14 Species composition of the early young fish in Ermakov island waters. Taxonomic unit

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

182

Cyprinidae Squalius cephalus (L.) – European chub Rutilus rutilus (L.) – Roach Scardinius erythrophthalmus (L.) – Common rudd Alburnus alburnus (L.) – Bleak Leucaspius delineatus (Heckel) – Sunbleak Blicca bjoerkna (L.) – Silver bream Abramis brama (L.) – Common bream Aspius aspius L. – European asp Rhodeus amаrus (Bloch) – European bitterling

Relative number, % Channels 0,8 89,7 3,8 – 1,3 – 0,5 0,5 –

Lakes The Danube – 0,5 4,9 0,2 91,5 1,1 – – 0,6

8,0 8,0 – 76,0 4,0 – – 4,0


Taxonomic unit 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

Pseudorasbora parva (Temminck et Schlegel) – Stone moroko Carassius sp. – Crucian and Prussian carp Gasterosteidae Pungitius platygaster (Kessler) – Ukrainian stickleback Percidae Perca fluviatilis L. – Eoropean perch Odontobutidae Perсcottus glenii Dybowski – Chinese sleeper Gobiidae Proterorhinus semilunaris (Heckel) – Western tubenose goby

Relative number, % Channels

Lakes The Danube

–

0,2

–

2,5

0,4

–

–

0,1

–

0,3

0,1

–

0,8

0,3

–

–

0,2

–

The channels were strongly overgrown (mainly by the water soldier Stratiotes aloides), in some places this aquatic plant vegetated so intensively that even obstructed moving of the boat. Such a situation can be harmful for feeding conditions of the reophilous species in summer. Ensuring the appropriate hydrological regime, which will guarantee the inflow of the Danube waters both over the flood and drought periods, will improve the conditions for their development in the island water bodies. In addition, they will be able to freely migrate into the Danube only if the sufficient capacity of passages in the dikes is maintained. Besides these species, the local fishermen reported on high abundance of pike Esox lucius in the lakes of the Ermakov Island. Moreover, according to their information, the island water bodies in spring serve as spawning areas for common carp Cyprinus carpio, which migrates to the island from the Danube. In addition, according to the results of the previous research (Report about the Ermakov island provided by the WWF), the island is also inhabited by pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus (L.) and tench Tinca tinсa, also ide Idus idus L. occasionally occurs. Therefore, taking into account these 183

СHAPTER 4

data, the current list of fishes which use the flooded island as spawning area includes at least 20 species. If the natural regime of the island is further restored and the appropriate seasonal flowage provided, it is likely that the riverine and riverine-lacustrine fish species (ide, chub, bream, asp, carp) will become more abundant. Abundance of the early juvenile fishes. The aggregations of fish larvae and juveniles were observed in the coastal zone or near the vegetation thi ckets, located both near shores and on the «islands» in the middle of lakes. The calculated specific number of larvae and fry (individuals per m2 of area) in locations of their concentration significantly varied in different biotopes, and their distribution in the littoral zone was extremely uneven (Table 4.15). The early juveniles number depended not only on the habitat characteristics, but also on the dominant species occurring there at different development stages. For example, the aggregations in which the sunbleak early larvae prevailed, amounted to 2260 ± 463 ind/m2 (the overgrown shallows on the Small Tataru island). In the communities dominated by roach, which was mostly presented by juveniles, the specific number was significantly lower, 333±116 ind/m2 (the channels on the Ermakov island). The significant errors in average values illustrated large difference in numbers of the collected samples, and therefore uneven distribution of juvenile fishes. The fact that juvenile fishes concentrate predominantly in the coastal bio topes was confirmed by ichthyoplankton sampling of the lake pelagic zone. For instance, the numbers of larvae and juveniles in the pelagic zone of the lake on the Small Tataru island amounted to 9,6 ind/100 m3 of water (75% of sunbleak and 25% of bleak), and only one bleak larva has been caught in simi lar way in central zone of the main channel. The early juveniles numbers in the pelagic zone of the lake on the Ermakov island was significantly higher – 47 ind/100 m3. The species composition was also more diverse, including 5 species: sunbleak (79,5%), crucian carp (2,6%), Chinese sleeper (7,7%), western tubenose goby (7,7%) and Ukrainian stickleback (2,6%). Probably, owing to the shallowness and the presence of the submerged vegetation in most of the lake water area, some larvae leave the littoral zone and disperse over the lake. Furthermore, some breeders of these fishes can use the open 184


spawning areas, after which their larvae could feed and grow in the same open areas where they have hatched. But still, the majority of juveniles concentrate in the coastal zone. Table 4.15. The specific numbers of fish larvae and juveniles in localities of their aggregation Specific number, ind/m2 Island

Channels

Lakes

Overgrown shallows

The Danube

Small Tataru

414 ± 152 240–717

142 ± 6 137–148

2260 ± 463 1797–2723

570*

Ermakov

333 ± 116 103–463

1164 ± 193 720–1627

–

42*

Notes: above the line - the mean numbers with error (N ± n); below the line – the numbers range (min-max); «*» – single sample; «–» – no data.

Species diversity and structure of the aquatic organisms’ communities, including the juvenile fishes, is closely connected with the effects of various environmental factors, both natural and anthropogenic. The latter, which include the river flow regulation, embanking, channel straightening, pollution, eutrophication etc., lead to sharp change in the conditions and, in most cases, cause decrease of species diversity. The species number is reduced, the domination of certain species, which are characterized by short life cycles, increases, the early maturation takes place, the biomass and production indices rise. Under eutrophication and pollution of the water bodies, the eurybiontic species with r-strategy take advantage, whereas under oligotrophic conditions of unpolluted waters, where the diversity is high and the species domination is less pronounced, the stenobiontic species with long development cycles and K-strategy are more represented [ODUM 1986, SHITIKOV 2003]. In order to obtain the indirect information about the state of the island hydroecosystems, the indices of species diversity and dominance of the juvenile fishes communities were calculated (Table 4.16). 185

СHAPTER 4

Table 4.16. Species diversity indices of juvenile fish communities. Shannon Index (H) Island Small Tataru Ermakov

Channels

Lakes

1,85 0,74

2,11 0,61

Overgrown shallows 0,42 –

The Danube 1,07 1,26

The species diversity indices on the Small Tataru island were rather high, except the overgrown shallows, characterized by small number of species and strongly expressed dominance of one short-cycle limnophilous species (sunbleak), which reached the dominance index of 0,96. The second position by domination (only in this biotope) was occupied by the stone moroco (dominance index 0,17), this species is a rather harmful invader, resistant to unfavorable impact and very adaptive to the spawning temperature and substrate, a food competitor to juveniles of valuable native fish species. The stone moroco was not detected in other island biotopes, and the dominance of sunbleak was not so strong (from 0,24 in lakes to 0,45 in channels). At the same time, the lacustrine-riverine, riverine-lacustrine and riverine, medium- and long-cycle fishes, many of which are commercially valuable, were of much greater coenotic value in the lakes and channels. For example, the dominance indices of roach, asp, common bream, silver bream and perch in the island channels were respectively equal to 0,62, 0,12, 0,10, 0,10 and 0,15. The dominance indexes of roach and perch in the lakes amounted respec tively to 0,84 and 0,19. In the Danube River beside roach (0,82), dominated ide (0,46), asp (0,30) and common bream (0,15). The obtained results showed the obvious positive impact of breaching the dikes and flushing of the island over the flood, which provides high diversity of fishes and creates conditions for reproduction of the commercial species. In view of further restoration of natural regime on the island, we should expect the gradual decrease of the functional role of the short-cycle low-value and invasive species in the ichthyocoenoses (sunbleak, stone moroko, Chinese sleeper), which clearly confirms to the measures that have been carried out to rehabilitate the island. 186


Despite the higher species richness of the fish juveniles compared to the Small Tataru, Ermakov Island was characterized by lower indices of species diversity, owing to inequality of the communities, where the large species numbers was leveled out by strong dominance of one or two species. For example, in the Ermakov channels the dominance indices of roach and sunbleak were respectively equal to 0,94 and 0,19. Indices of all other species were below 0,1. The lakes were dominated by sunbleak and common rudd, which dominance indices were respectively equal to 0,91 and 0,25; the indices of other nine species were below 0,1. The species number in the Danube adjacent channel was lower than in the island waters, but the indices of each species were quite high, which indicated their more even contribution to the structure of the communities and higher stability of the ecosystem. The lower indices of the species diversity compared to the Small Tataru were probably conditioned by the fact that the natural regime of the Ermakov island was restored much later, so its ichthyocoenoses actually are at the recovery stage. The large number of minor species in the island waters probably indicate the first stages of increasing the ichthyofauna biodiversity after restoration of the natural hydrological regime on the island. Those species which are secondary now, can later be consolidated in the ecosystem and «balance» the communities, reducing the role of the short-cycle limnophilous species. Among these minor species on the island there are several medium- and long-cycle commercial species, such as crucian and Prussian carp, common bream, asp, European chub and others. In our opinion, given the subsequent annual flooding and flushing of the island during the spring flood, we should expect increase of these species portion in the ichthyocoenoses.

4.3. MODERN STATE OF HYDROBIOCOENOSES OF SMALL TATARU AND ERMAKOV ISLANDS. The carried out studies showed that according to the hydrochemical parameters, the characteristics of invertebrate macrofauna and early young fishes the hydrobiocenoses of the Danube Delta islands Small 187

СHAPTER 4

Tataru and Ermakov in spring fully corresponded to those in similar non-island water bodies of the delta, which suggests their «naturalness» and significant restoration of the ecological state as compared with the embanking period, when the flooding process was practically suspended and the aquatic ecosystems on the islands were destroyed. The hydrological-hydrochemical regime during the research period was favorable for the development of the aquatic biota. During the research, 108 species of the macroinvertebrates were registered, the most widely presented were insects (59 species), mollusks (18 species) and oligochaetes (17 species). Crustaceans included only six species. Maximal species number (81) was registered in the water bodies and water courses of the Small Tataru island, on the Ermakov island – 70 species, and 22 species in the reedbed channel of the Ochakivskyi island. The structure of macroinvertebrate complexes in the channel of Ochakivskyi island has been studied for comparison, as an example of what happens to hydroecosystems of islands after they convert to the reed beds: we noted the decrease of species richness and extinction of crustaceans, insects and bivalve mollusks. One of the most interesting findings in the invertebrate macrofauna communities of the Small Tataru and Ermakov islands was the Red Book species Anax imperator Leach, 1815 and the European medicinal leech Hirudo medicinalis Linnaeus, 1758 [CHERVONA 2009]. Though these species are mostly scarce in the natural habitats and vulnerable to pollution, they occur quite often in the Danube Delta. The medicinal leech has been included into the world’s conservation lists, such as Annex 2 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES, Washington Convention), Annex 3 of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) and Annex V of the Habitats Directive [UTEVSKY, ZAGMAJSTER, TRONTELJ 2014]. One of the biggest aquatic beetles in Ukraine, the great silver water beetle Hydrophilus piceus (Linnaeus, 1758), and the biggest water bug, the water stick insect Ranatra linearis (Linnaeus), which are typical inhabitants of the Danube Delta, have been found in the channels of the Ermakov island. 188


The water stick insect is sensitive to the water pollution by the oil products and lubricants, spread on the water surface, blocking the insects’ breathing through the respiratory tubes. The numbers of Ranatra linearis has been decreasing over the recent years, that is why this species has been included in regional conservation lists [ROMANENKO, AFANASYEV, PETUCHOV 2003]. On the other hand, an interesting and unusual fact for the Delta hydrobiocoenoses is rather low representation of the Ponto-Caspian fauna; only four species were registered on the islands, namely Cystobranchus fasciatus (Piscicola fasciata), Jaera sarsi, Chelicorophium curvispinum and Limnomysis benedeni. A species of Sino-Indian fauna, Branchiura sowerbyi and Sinanodonta woodiana, also were registered. Comparison of the species composition in each type of the water bo dies showed that the species richness in the island lakes was close (45 and 49 species), and species number of the channels of Small Tataru island were 1.4 times higher of the Ermakov island (69 vs. 49), probably owing to greater degree of overgrowth and weaker flowage. The similarity analysis of the species composition of the lakes of the Small Tataru and Ermakov islands with the non-island lakes Merhei and Babina (Sulina Delta) and the Anankin Kut lake and Anankin Kut channel (Kiliya Delta) showed that the mentioned water bodies form the common pool with high similarity level – 50% and above. Only the reed bed channel of the Ochakivskyi Island was separated as it was characterized by minimal species richness. Thus, the species richness and species composition of macroinvertebrates’ complexes in the water bodies of the islands are quite comparable to those in other hydrobiocoenoses of the Danube Delta (except the channel on the Ochakivskyi Island). The studies of the fish larvae and juveniles on the considered islands and the adjacent areas of the Danube River have registered 16 fish species of five families. The most abundant was Cyprinidae, including 12 species. The Gasterosteidae, Percidae, Odontobutidae and Gobiidae were presented by single species each. 13 fish species of four families have been identified in the waters of Small Tataru and 15 species of five families – on the Ermakov 189

СHAPTER 4

waters. Taking into account the short research period, this can be generally considered as a high values. The significant coenotic diversity of ichthyofauna was observed: the lakustrine-riverine, riverine-lakustrine and riverine, medium- and longcycle fishes, many of which are commercially valuable. The distribution of European bitterling, a fish that deposits eggs inside the freshwater oxyphi lous bivalve mollusks, indicated that at least in spring the stagnant processes in the bottom water layer of the channels are absent, and the oxygen regime is favorable for the development of invertebrates and ichthyofauna. The asp juveniles were registered only in the channels, the presence of this rheophilous species indicates good flowage over the spring flood, favorable for spawning of the riverine fishes. It can be assert that the impact of dozing was obviously positive. This has ensured the access of the Danube waters to the island water bodies over the spring flood, their life-giving flushing, favorable conditions for their development and reproduction and, as a consequence, high diversity of invertebrate macrofauna and fishes including valuable species. Provided that the natural water regime on the islands is maintained, gradual decrease of the functional role of the short-cycle, low-value and invasive species (sunbleak, stone moroko, Chinese sleeper) in fish communities should be expected. Simultaneously, the riverine and riverine-lakustrine valuable fish species (ide, chub, bream, asp, carp) can become more numerous. At the same time, we can not but highlight a series of negative phenomena that we and other researchers observed. For instance, in summer, over the drought period, strong drop in water levels and reduction in the island water areas are probable. In the shallow areas the water temperature rapidly rises, the oxygen concentration decreases, hypoxia can occur, which can cause death of juvenile and adult fishes, as well as their eating out by birds, due to the easier access to prey and less opportunities for fish to shelter. The decrease of water level also affects many other aquatic organisms, that is why it is necessary to maintain the flowage of the island water bodies for the entire vegetation season, especially over the drought period to ensure their survival. 190


We also noted strong vegetal invasion of the channels, especially on the Ermakov Island. If such a situation happens over the long period in summer, it can also affect the successful feeding of rheophilous fishes and normal development of other aquatic organisms. Provision of the appropriate hydrological regime will improve the conditions for their development in the island water bodies and ensure the inflow of Danube water over both flood and drought period. Moreover, maintaining the required capacity of passages in the dikes is essential for free fishes’ migration in the Danube. Nevertheless, the situations with lack of oxygen, overgrowing and drying of the water bodies, as well as catastrophic floods, are quite natural. The transformation of the water bodies and water courses, which are now isolated, into oxbows and dead channels like the studied one on the Ochakivskyi island, and their subsequent transformation into dry land, are all the stages of natural succession. But we have already intervened the island ecosystems and thus assumed the responsibility for their future destiny, so perhaps we must determine what do we prefer them to look like. What regime of using the islands to choose, whether cattle grazing, or environment-oriented, recreational and touristy, or all of them simultaneously. At the moment, we are interested in maintaining the high biotopical and biological diversity, typical for the early stages of succession. The real management tools to control the biotic processes on the islands could be: maintenance of the appropriate hydro logical regime, provision of good flowage and oxygen dynamics, prevention of silting and loss of depth, swamping, stagnation processes, oxygen deficit, etc. That is elimination of dikes, which opens the way for the Danube water to the islands’ inland waters. Certain concern is caused by the fact that the dissolved load will come along with the Danube water, and the excessive quantity of alluvia and its accumulation will again contribute to the above-mentioned negative phenomena. That is why the suspended matter from the Danube should not only come in, but also come out of island hydroecosystems, or be artificially removed. Realizing that establishing of the appropriate hydrological regime and maintaining the steady morphometric indices of the water bodies on the 191

СHAPTER 4

islands is significantly beyond our competence, we have to note that during the organization of hydroecological monitoring, the specialists on hydrobiology are able to predict the adverse periods in hydrobiocoenoses, deterioration of the ecological situation and need for the appropriate measures. Under limited funding and institutional capacity, the efficiency of monitoring should be achieved with the help of limited and substantiated set of parame ters and their regular control. The development of the specific algorithm for hydroecological monito ring is probably essential for the water bodies of each island, though this was not the subject of this work. We should only note that, in our opinion, the monitoring site located on the outlet of Lipovansky arm from the Ermakov island to Danube (our sampling site N10) may be effective in terms of obtaining the comprehensive information on the state of internal island hydrobiocoenoses. By installing the drift trap (traps) at the channel mouth, it is possible to control the quantitative and qualitative indicators of properly planktonic organisms (phyto-, zoo- and ichthyoplankton). Their structural characteristics will change over the year, and based on their dynamics it is possible to determine the state of internal island hydrobiocoenoses and the way they change. An atypical increase in portions of the benthic, periphytic organisms, fishes and other nekton organisms, along with other signs, could signalize on the situation worsening. Summarizing the carried out research, we can state the high degree of «naturalness» of hydroecosystems on the studied islands and the need for further elimination of dikes and urgent need for environmental monitoring.

192

CHAPTER 5.

REFERENCE PARAMETERS OF THE KILIYA DANUBE DELTA WATER BODIES Characteristic, given above is significant and important compo nent of the actual ecological status of the water bodies comprehending, but it does not enable assessment of their ecological status according to the principles of the EC Water Framework Directive [EU… 2006]. The background WFD’s conception is that for the ecological status of the water bodies determination it is necessary to evaluate level of its ecosystem’s disturbance comparatively to the certain conditional natural status. Assessment of the ecological status (state) in fact consists in classification of the water bodies (or their sections) on the background of the comparison of data obtained in the field investigation with the reference (etalon) parameters of the given water bodies’ type. The next stage is establishment of the etalon, reference conditions (that is those, occurred before human impact or other disturbances) for the every type of the water bodies. Annex V of the WFD clearly indicates elements to be used for the classification of the water bodies’ ecological status (state): 1) composition, abundance and biomass of phytoplankton, 2) composition and abundance of other aquatic flora; 2) composition and abundance of benthic invertebrate fauna; 3) composition, abundance and age structure of fish fauna. Within each element as indicative parameters can serve, for example, individual species, groups, populations or communities of the aquatic organisms, characteristics of which according to the changes of the aquatic environment quality, considered as biotope, caused first of all by the human load. As characteristics (descriptors) both individual parameters of the species (saprobic index, indicative value) or population (informational diversity of the size and weight groups, sexual structure) and different biotic indices, which take into account presence of the of the indicative groups in the communities, or simple ratio of the species number in the communities of the aquatic organisms. Any negative impact disturbs communities’ structure, 193

СHAPTER 5

changes species composition of the biotic complexes, quantitative ratio of the certain groups. That’s why presence of the rare and endangered species can indicate originality of the certain water body, its peculiarity, and high species richness can indicate lack of the disturbance of the habitats. Characteristics’ deviations toward more or less values comparatively to the reference, is an evidence of the negative processes, though sometimes the assessment is not so single valued. Reference conditions are the benchmark for the further activities, comparison for the actual parameters and, as a result, assessment of the actual status of the separate elements and ecosystem on the whole. On the background of the material of the given project, our previous investigation [ALEK SANDROV at al. 2007; KORNYUSHIN, LIASHENKO 2004, MAKOVSKIY, LYASHENKO 2011, SANZHAK at al. 2012, AFANA SIEV at al. 2008; ZORINA-SAKHAROVA at al. 2008, SANZHAK, LIASHENKO 2009, LYASHENKO at al. 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013; ZORINA-SAKHAROVA, LYASHENKO 2008; ROMANENKO at al., 2011, LYASHENKO, ZORINA-SAKHAROVA 2008, 2009, 2012, 2014, 2015] and the well-known literary data [MARKOVSKIY 1955, OLIVARI 1961, POLISCHUK 1974, ZIMBALEVSKAYA 1969] we have made the first attempt for the determination of the reference conditions for the some water body types of the Kiliya Danube delta (Table 5.1.). Proposed table is a background for the assessment of the actual state (status) of the water bodies, this is the first attempt to create starting point for the comparison. Surely, many parameters need specification, may be completion by other descriptors. Ideally, every kind of pressure have to be associated with the certain descriptor. Probably, it is appropriate to include into the biological blocks organisms of the higher trophic levels, because they integrate characteristic of status, as well as rare and Red Lists’ fish and bird species, because they indicate high value of the ecosystems capable of maintaining their occurring. Certainly, such assessment needs big volume of additional information for all blocks of the Table. This will be a subject for the further investigation 194

REFERENCE PARAMETERS OF THE KILIYA DANUBE DELTA WATER BODIES

Table. 5.1. Reference characteristic of the Kiliya Danube delta water bodies Objects of classification of the Kiliya delta (August) Hydrobiological parameters

Arms and branches

Reservoirs of delta In-delta lakes

Brackish bays

8

8

Block 1 – Water quality Invertebrate macrofauna biotic index

7

Saprobity, phytoplankton

β-mesosaprobic

β-mesosaprobic

β-mesosaprobic

Saprobity, zooplankton

β-mesosaprobic

β-mesosaprobic

β-mesosaprobic

Saprobity, zoobenthos

β-mesosaprobic

β-mesosaprobic

β-mesosaprobic

Saprobity, phytophilous fauna β-mesosaprobic

β-mesosaprobic

β-mesosaprobic

Trophity

mesotrophic

mesotrophic

mesotrophic

Block 2 – Communities’ structure (Indicative and significant for the reference conditions groups in the main communities) zoobenthos Species richphytophilous ness fauna

15

20

25

20

30

30

Number of invertebrates spe- Ephemeroptera – 4 cies Trichoptera – 6 Odonata – 6 Bivalvia – 4

Ephemeroptera – 3 Trichoptera – 6 Odonata – 6 Bivalvia – 3

Ephemeroptera – 3 Trichoptera – 5 Odonata – 6

Number of the aquatic mac- Rheophilous – 3, rophytes in the indicative Limnophilous – 1 groups

Rheophilous – 1 Limnophilous – 3 Swamp – 3

Rheophilous – 2 Limnophilous – 3 Swamp – 1

Number of the aquatic macrophytes belts

1

3

3

Block 3 - Biodiversity (Indicative and significant for the reference conditions species, as well as endemics and protected species) Anax imperator, Astacus leptodactilus, venosus, Indicative and significant for Ecdyorynus Palyngenya eucauthe reference conditions in- data, Hirudo medicivertebrates species nalis, Oligoneureula renana, Ranatra linearis

Corophium sp., Dikerogammarus sp., Donacia sp., Hirudo medicinalis, Astacus leptodactilus, Ranatra linearis

Amathelina cristata, Mysidacea, Cumacea, Unio pictorum, U. crassus, Anodonta cignea, Hirudo medicinalis Astacus leptodactilus, Ranatra linearis

195

СHAPTER 5 Objects of classification of the Kiliya delta (August) Hydrobiological parameters

Reservoirs of delta

Arms and branches

In-delta lakes

Brackish bays

Presence of the submerged plants, not more than 3 species of the plants with floating leaves, Nymphaea alba

Sparganium emersum, Trapa natans, Potamogeton pectinatus, P. perfoliatus,

4,5 Numerical density phytophilous fauna, thousand 0,5 ind/kg

3,5

1,5

10

15

8,0

10,0

Indicative and significant for the reference conditions aquatic macrophytes species (plants of the Red book of Ukraine and endangered species – in Bold)

Typha latifolia, T. angustifolia, Phragmites australis, Glyceria maxima, Sparganium emersum, Potamogeton pectinatus, P. perfoliatus, absence of the plants with floating leaves

Indicative and significant for the reference conditions fish species

Biomass phytophilous fauna, g/kg

1,5 5

Block 4 - Biotopes (ratio of the main biotopes indicative for the reference conditions) Rate of the overgrowth

1

100

25

Average depth

7

1,5

2

Prevailing substratum type

sand, gray loamy silt

gray silt, black silt

gray silt, silted sand

196

CHAPTER 6.

PROPOSAL FOR THE MONITORING SCHEME OF THE DANUBE DELTA The worldwide decline of biodiversity as a consequence of habi tat alteration, along with new concepts brought by the sustainable development, aiming to assure the safe environment for the next generations, lead to the increasing concern towards the ecological status of the ecosystems. Consequently, an important conceptual shift occurred in the last decades in the assessment of water quality and aquatic ecosystems status: transition from the mainly chemical control of water quality, considered as “human resource”, to the investigation of the ecological status, considering the aquatic ecosystem as environment for the aquatic biocenoses. Nowadays many scientists associate the term “good” or “high” status with “not disturbed”, “reference” or “natural” status of the ecosystem [AFANASIEV, 2001, DE PAUW, HAWKES 1993, SCHOFIELD, DAVIES 1996], defining for example “health of a river as level of similarity with etalon river of the same type” [SCHOFIELD, DAVIES 1996]. The adoption and implementation of Water Framework Directive (2000/60/ЕС), which introduced unified EU-wide approach to the water management by river basins, aiming to ensure “good ecological status” of the aquatic ecosystems, was a step forward in the monitoring of the surface waters due to its holistic approach. For the first time the aquatic ecosystem was considered as an entity, its ecological integrity being assessed as interaction of biological, hydromorphological, chemical and physical parameters. For such a wide area as Danube River Basin, common assessment strategy is a must in order to assure a proper ecological quality of its aquatic ecosystems. The second river in Europe, Danube has the most international river basin as it comprises the territories of 19 countries, covering a surface of more than 800,000 km2. Based on the provisions of Danube River Protection Convention, in 1996 the common monitoring program was launched by the International Convention for Protection of Danube River, the TransNational 197

СHAPTER 6

Monitoring Programme (TNMN), with the main aim to provide an overall view of pollution and long-term trends in water quality of the major rivers in the Danube River Basin. According to TNMN criteria, water quality can be classified in 5 classes, the limits of class II being considered as target values and the limits of class I as reference conditions. Class III–V is considered as in non-compliance with WFD; the TNMN limits for surface water classification are presented in Annex 1. Among the 37 monitored parameters, only 1, the saprobiological index, takes into consideration the biological communities (being calculated based on benthic invertebrates); other two microbiological parameters were added recently: fecal and total coliforms), but still, these criteria can not indicate the ecological status of the aquatic ecosystem. Consequently, in 2006 the TNMN was revised to ensure full compliance with the provisions of the EU-WFD. Both countries, Romania and Ukraine, have committed to apply the requirements of WFD in order to achieve the good ecological status of waterbodies by 2015, implementing new assessment measures in their legislation. Romania has aligned her legislation to WFD compliances adopting the M.O. 161/16.02.2006 for the “Classification of surface waters quality in order to establish the ecological status of waterbodies”, where biological, hydromorphological and physico-chemical criteria are considered. The biological criteria comprise the evaluation of phytoplankton (species richness, abundance, biomass), phytobenthos and macrophytes (species richness, abundance), macroinvertebrates (species richness, abundance), icthyofauna (species richness, abundance, structure of age classes). The hydromorphological criteria comprise the river discharge, flow, the connectivity with underground layer, river/lake depth, retention time for lakes, river width and continuity, substrata and banks structure. The physico-chemical criteria comprise transparency, temperature, dissolved oxygen, the content of organic matter, mineralization, pH, nutrients, priority substances or other substances discharged in the river/lake. The saprobic index in rivers is calculated based on plankton, benthic algae and benthic macroinvertebrates, while for lakes, the trophic status is assessed based on total phosphorus, mineral nitrogen, phytoplankton biomass and chlorophyll-a. 198

PROPOSAL FOR THE MONITORING SCHEME OF THE DANUBE DELTA

In Ukraine, the “Methodology for ecological assessment of surface waters and estuaries” was adopted in 1998 by the Ministry of Environmental Protection as national guidance for the ecological assessment of surface waters quality. The annex 2 of this document, “Ecological assessment of the surface waters and estuaries by trophic-saprobiological (ecological and sanitary) criteria” – contains 18 parameters, one third referring to biological communities (phytoplankton biomass, self-purification index, bacterioplankton abundance, saprophytic bacteria abundance, saprobic index according Pantle-Buck and Goodnight-Whitley), but this assessment does not offer information about the biodiversity and bioresources of the aquatic ecosystem. The different systems of water quality assessment have higher impact when dealing with transboundary waterbodies as different tools had always lead to different conclusions about the ecosystems status. Therefore, we consider as necessary the adoption of the common evaluation system in the whole Danube River Basin, in order to obtain reliable results regarding its ecological state. According to the WFD, the information regarding phytoplankton, phytobenthos, aquatic vegetation, macroinvertebrates and fish communities is the first step in the ecological assessment of an aquatic ecosystem. The anthropogenic impact can affect the aquatic ecosystems in many ways, leading to changes in the structural and functional parameters of its communities. Thus, species richness, abundance and biomass, saprobic index (calculated based on presence/absence of some indicator species), size and weight of the populations (evaluated for example by Shannon index) or other biotic indices (e.g. ТВІ) can be used as reliable indicators. An important step is the establishment of threshold values, i.e. critical values, which indicate the deterioration of the ecological status. For instance, the «Rapid Bioassessment Protocols» (RBPs), approved by the US Enviromental Protection Agency in 1989 and improved in 1990, is based on the ecological variability assessment. If the characteristics are increasing or decreasing by more than 25%, following the variation of anthropogenic load, it indicates the worsening of ecological conditions. In the European Union, the transition towards higher water classes shows the worsening of water quality (from class I – very good to V – bad), but the 199

СHAPTER 6

effects on biological communities are evaluated considering mainly the saprobic indices in rivers or trophic status in lakes. Since 2005, in the framework of SCOPES project and of the intercademic cooperation, the Institute of Biology Bucharest, Romanian Academy and the Institute of Hydrobiology Kiev, NAS of Ukraine have carried out joint hydro ecological investigations in Danube Delta. Within 2006–2007, 11 aquatic ecosystems from the Romanian and Ukrainian parts of the delta were investigated, aiming at assessment the actual ecological status of these ecosystems using the common methodology, in compliance with WFD. Both institutes have carried research projects in the Danube Delta since the 1950ies, the long term investigations allowing the observation of gradual changes occurred in delta’s aquatic ecosystems under the anthropogenic impact. Also, the Institute of Hydrobiology is involved in the integrated ecological monitoring of the project concerning renewing and exploitation of the deep-water navigation channel in Bystryi arm. Based on the conceptual principles mentioned above and on the previous experiences, the joint proposal for monitoring and assessment of ecological status of the aquatic ecosystems in the Danube Delta is presented, aiming to provide useful tools to the decision makers for the biodiversity conservation and the sustainable use of its resources. Some characteristic ecosystems were chosen for monitoring (Table 6.1), aiming to assess both biodiversity and anthropogenic influence, in order to mitigate the environmental impact, but this network can be extended according to further needs and possibilities. Table 6.1. Sites proposed for monitoring in Danube Delta (both Ro+Ukr sides) Code*

Kiliya Delta (UA)

Code*

UA-R01

Danube, 2 km upstream Reni

RO- R01

UA-R02

Danube, 1 km downstream Reni RO-R02 Danube – Izmail Chatal, upstream bifurcation in RO-R03 Tulcea and Kiliya arms

UA-R03

Sulina Delta (RO) Danube – Izmail Chatal, Tulcea arm, 1 km downstream the bifurcation Tulcea arm, 1 km upstream Tulcea Tulcea arm, 2 km downstream Tulcea

UA-R04

Kiliya arm, 2 km upstream Izmail RO-R04

Tulcea arm, 1 km upstream bifurcation at Saint George Chatal

UA-R05

Kiliya arm, 1 km downstream Izmail

Sulina arm, 2 km upstream Maliuc

200

RO-R05

PROPOSAL FOR THE MONITORING SCHEME OF THE DANUBE DELTA Code* UA-R06

Code* RO-R06

UA-R15

Kiliya Delta (UA) Kiliya arm, 2 km upstream Kiliya Kiliya arm, 1 km downstream Kiliya Kiliya arm, 1 km upstream Vilkove Ochakivskyi branch, 1 km downstream Vilkove Ochakivskyi branch, 1 km upstream bifurcation in Prorva and Potapiv branches Prorva branch, outlet to sea Potapiv branch, outlet to sea Starostambulskyi branch, upstream bifurcation to Bystryi branch Starostambulskyi branch, outlet to sea Bystryi branch – 1 km from the inflow

UA-R16

Bystryi branch, outlet to sea

RO-R16

UA-R07 UA-R08 UA-R09 UA-R10 UA-R11 UA-R12 UA-R13 UA-R14

RO-R08

Sulina Delta (RO) Sulina arm, 1 km downstream Maliuc Sulina arm - Old Danube meander – 1 km from the bifurcation Sulina arm – Old Danube meander – 1 km before the confluence with main arm

RO-R09

Sulina arm, 1 km upstream Crisan

RO-R10

Sulina arm – 1 km downstream Crisan

RO-R11 RO-R12

Sulina arm, 1 km upstream Sulina town Sulina arm, outlet to the sea

RO-R13

Saint George arm, 1 km upstream Mahmudia

RO-R14

Saint George arm – old meander, 1 km from the inflow Saint George arm – old meander, Uzlina village Saint George arm – old meander, 1 km before the confluence Saint George arm - 1 km upstream Dunavat Saint George arm, 2 km downstream Ivancea

RO-R07

RO-R15

Vostochnyi branch, 1 km from RO-R17 the inflow branch, outlet to RO-R18 UA-R18 Vostochnyi sea branch - entrance to UA-R19 Rybachyi RO-R19 Saint George arm – outlet to the sea the Anankin Kut lake UA-R20 Limba branch RO-L20 Rosu lake UA-R21 Misura branch RO-L21 Erenciuc lake UA-R22 Solonyi branch RO-L22 Uzlina lake UA-R23 Shabash Kut RO-L23 Isac lake UA-L24 Potapiv Kut RO-L24 Gorgova lake UA-L25 Deliukiv Kut RO-L25 Matita lake UA-L26 Ptichiy Kut RO-L26 Merhei lake UA-L27 Lebiazhiye melkovodiye RO-L27 Furtuna lake UA-L28 Lake Lazorkin Kut RO-L28 Tataru lake UA-L29 Lake Anankin Kut RO-C29 Lopatna channel Note: * R – arm and branches, L – lake, C – channel; the ecosystems in bold are considered as mandatory to be monitored. UA-R17

201

СHAPTER 6

The list of physical, chemical and biological parameters selected for monitoring is suggested in Table 6.2; as most of the pollutants accumulate at the bottom of the aquatic ecosystem, we considered necessary to include a list of parameters which should be monitored also in the sediment. Diversity indices based on the structure of different trophic levels may be calculated (Shannon, TBI) in order to compare the different ecosystems. Besides these analyses, a screening to track the sub-lethal effects of pollution should be done in the areas with the highest anthropogenic impact as the current monitoring strategy has been proven to be unable to detect such effects [KOEHLER et al 2005; SANDU et al 2008]. Such analyses should include biomarkers in fish (e.g. hsp 70, CyP 450, EROD activity) [KOEHLER et al, 2007] and bioaccumulation of pollutants in fish tissues. According to the results, the monitoring strategy can be adequately adapted by adding/ cancelling some of the parameters. Table 6.2. List of the parameters and observation frequency recommended for the hydroecological monitoring of the Danube Delta (both Ro+Ukr sides without transitional waters) Parameters A. Physico-chemical parameters Water column Temperature Transparency pH Conductivity Salinity Suspended matter Dissolved oxygen Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) Chemical oxygen demand (COD-Cr) Ammonium (N-NH4+) Nitrites (N-NO2-) Nitrates (N-NO3-) Dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN)

202

Measurement Minimum sampunit ling frequency*

°C m µS/cm ‰ mg/l mg O2/l mg O2/l mg O2/l mg N/l mg N/l mg N/l mg N/l

Every two months Every two months Every two months Every two months Every two months Every two months Every two months Every two months Every two months Every two months Every two months Every two months Every two months

Location

All All All All Outlets to the sea, lagoons All All All All All All All All


Parameters Total nitrogen Ortho-phosphates (P-PO43-) Total phosphorus (TP) Chlorophyll-a Chlorides (Cl-) Sulphates (SO42-) Calcium (Ca2+) Magnesium (Mg2+) Sodium (Na+) Total chromium (Cr3++ Cr6+) Copper (Cu2+) Zinc (Zn2+) Arsen (As3+) Barium (Ba2+) Selenium (Se4+) Cobalt (Co3+) Lead (Pb) Cadmium (Cd) Mercury (Hg) Nickel (Ni) Total iron (Fe2++ Fe3+) Total manganese (Mn2++ Mn7+) Phenolic index ANA Detergents Absorbable organically bound halogens (AOX) Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (∑ PAH) Polychlorinated biphenyls (∑ PCB) Pesticides Oil products Sediment Organic matter Total nitrogen Total phosphorus

Measurement unit mg N/l mg P/l mg P/l µg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l mg/l mg/l µg/l µg/l

Minimum sampling frequency* Every two months Every two months Every two months Every two months Every two months Every two months Every two months Every two months Every two months Every two months Every two months Every two months Every two months Every two months Every two months Every two months Every two months Every two months Every two months Every two months Every two months Every two months Every two months Every two months

µg/l

Every two months Arms, channels

µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l

Every two months Every two months Every two months Every two months

Arms, channels Arms, channels All All

% mg N/kg mg P/kg

seasonal seasonal seasonal

All All All

Location All All All All Outlets to the sea, lagoons Outlets to the sea, lagoons Outlets to the sea, lagoons Outlets to the sea, lagoons Outlets to the sea, lagoons Arms, channels Arms, channels Arms, channels Arms, channels Arms, channels Arms, channels Arms, channels Arms, channels Arms, channels Arms, channels Arms, channels Arms, channels Arms, channels All Arms, channels

203

СHAPTER 6 Measurement unit Arsenic (As3+) mg/kg Cadmium (Cd) mg/kg Total chromium (Cr3++ Cr6+) mg/kg Copper (Cu2+) mg/kg Lead (Pb) mg/kg Mercury (Hg) mg/kg Nickel (Ni) mg/kg Zinc (Zn2+) mg/kg Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (∑ PAH) mg/kg Polychlorinated biphenyls (∑ PCB) mg/kg Pesticides mg/kg Oil products mg/kg Phenols mg/kg B. Biological parameters Microbiological parameters Abundance no/l Biomass µg C/l Faecal coliforms no/100 ml Total coliforms n/100 ml Faecal streptococci n/100 ml Phytoplankton Species richness n, species list Number of families n Abundance ind/l Biomass mg/l Biomass, according Chlorophyll-a mg/l Phytobenthos Species richness n, species list Number of families n Abundance ind/m2 Biomass mg/m2 Macrophytes Species richness n, species list Number of families n Parameters

204

Minimum sampling frequency* seasonal seasonal seasonal seasonal seasonal seasonal seasonal seasonal seasonal seasonal seasonal seasonal seasonal

Location Arms, channels Arms, channels Arms, channels Arms, channels Arms, channels Arms, channels Arms, channels Arms, channels Arms, channels Arms, channels All All All

seasonal All All Arms, channels Arms, channels Arms, channels seasonal All All All All All seasonal All All All All seasonal All All


Parameters Number of belts Coverage of water surface Frequency of occurrence of invasive species Coverage of invasive species Zooplankton Species richness Abundance Biomass Macroinvertebrates Species richness Number of indicative groups Abundance Biomass Dominant species Species of special protection Threatened species Invasive species

Measurement Minimum sampunit ling frequency* n All % All %

All

%

All seasonal

n, species list ind/l mg/l

All All All seasonal

n, species list n, groups list ind/m2 mg/m2 n, species list n, species list n, species n, species

All All All All All All All All not less 1 times/ year

Ichthyofauna Species richness Species of special protection Frequency of catching of invasive species Number of fry emigration Abundance Age/sex structure C. Saprobic index Phytoplankton Oligosaprobic indicators β-mesosaprobic indicators α-mesosaprobic indicators Polysaprobic indicators Saprobic index fpk Zooplankton

Location

n, species list n, species list

All All

%

All

n n n

Arms, channels All All Arms, channels seasonal

n/l n/l n/l n/l

All All All All All seasonal

205

СHAPTER 6

Parameters

Measurement Minimum sampunit ling frequency* n/l n/l n/l n/l

Location

Oligosaprobic indicators All β-mesosaprobic indicators All α-mesosaprobic indicators All Polysaprobic indicators All Saprobic index zpk All Benthic algae seasonal Oligosaprobic indicators n/l All β-mesosaprobic indicators n/l All α-mesosaprobic indicators n/l All Polysaprobic indicators n/l All Saprobic index bnalg All Benthic macroinvertebrates seasonal Oligosaprobic indicators n/l All β-mesosaprobic indicators n/l All α-mesosaprobic indicators n/l All Polysaprobic indicators n/l All Saprobic index zbn All D. Evaluation of trophic status seasonal Lakes Total phosphorus mg P/l All Inorganic nitrogen mgN/l All Phytoplankton biomass mg/l All Chlorophyll-a µg/l All E. Presence of protected/ endangered species** Ichthyofauna seasonal All Amphibians + reptiles seasonal All Birds species seasonal All Mammals seasonal All F. Presence of invasive species Macroinvertebrates seasonal All Ichtyofauna seasonal All *The ideal strategy should include monthly investigations; as this is difficult to achieve mainly due to economical reasons, a minimum number of investigations was considered. In the first year of monitoring the physical and chemical parameters will be monitored more frequent in order to establish dynamics and levels of contamination; where the concentration

206

PROPOSAL FOR THE MONITORING SCHEME OF THE DANUBE DELTA is below the detection limit for the whole year and no pollution source is located in the area, since the second year the parameter can be monitored twice per year. **In order to stop the biodiversity decline, these species will receive special attention; the list will include species, nomber of individuals observed/caught, location, category of protection (e.g. Bern convention, IUCN, etc.). Whenever possible, their habitats should be strictly protected as habitat alteration has been proven to be the main cause for species loss.

The assessment of ecological status should take into consideration also the hydromorphological characteristics of the aquatic ecosystem; thus, the following parameters should be evaluated (Table 6.3). As this list of parameters represent a compilation of national and international standards in compliance with WFD, we consider this monitoring scheme as a guidance for further development of national monitoring strategies in order to achieve the common ecological evaluation system in the Danube River Basin. The cooperation with local experts can be very helpful in finding the best solution for its adaptation to the specific conditions of the Danube Delta. Tab. 6.3 Hydromorphological parameters considered for the assessment of ecological status of rivers and lakes (M.O. 161/2006) Rivers Lakes

Water flow and discharge Connectivity with underground layer Depth Width variation River continuity Substrata structure

Amount of water Retention time Connectivity with underground layer Depth Amount and structure of substrata Banks structure

207

Afterword The book is a summary of one more stage of investigations of the Danube delta – the European second biggest delta (after the Volga delta) formed by single river. The Danube is an international river, its basin covers territory of 18 states, and delta itself is shared by two – Ukraine and Romania. Lower Danube and delta are not only of European, but of global significance. So, in the book the main attention was paid to the results of joint international studies. Danube is one of the world biggest rivers and has its own peculiarity – downstream the Iron Gate dam for about 1000 km it runs in the relatively natural riverbed with minor embankment, and thus river waters become highly turbid owing to significant amount of suspended matters. Their annual average content for the prolong period amounted to 170–200 g/m3 with maximal values up to 2300 g/m3, the annual volume of alluvia can reach 100 mil tons. Significant concentration of the suspended matters conditions development of the branched secondary, or marine, delta, which constantly advances into the sea. The Danube delta begins nearby the Izmail Cheatal by bifurcation of the main channel into two arms – the Tulcea (Romanian) and Kiliya, which serves as a boundary between Ukraine and Romania. The Tulcea arm is quite short (14 km), downstream the town of Tulcha it divides into the Sulina and St. George arms. Hydrobiological characteristics of different arms have their peculiarities, which was confirmed by our investigations. Sometimes specialists consider deltas of individual arms – delta of the Kiliya arm, delta of the Sulina and St. George arms, as they historically developed in different way and experienced different anthropogenic intrusion. The secondary Kiliya arm’s delta is the youngest. It is located downstream the town of Vylkove, process of its forming started about 300 years ago and still continues. It is conditioned by several hydrophysical processes, as turbulent mixing of the water masses, sedimentation of suspended matters, forming of bottom sediments, mixture of the fresh and saline waters, flooding of vast territories, etc. At the flow velocity deceleration close of the 208

AFTERWORD

Danube River fall into the Black Sea, the suspended particles settle, form coastal spits, desalinated bays («kut»), intra-delta lakes and islands. Active part of the Kiliya delta, or expansion zone, is hydraulically connected with the river flow and sea. The islands are covered by the lacustrine and swamp vegetation (wetlands). The wetlands are rich in the unique biotopes, which provides occurrence of both common widely distributed species and rare, endemic and relic species as well, plants and animals, remained from the past geological epochs. To the certain degree similar processes take place in the front marine part of the St. George arm delta, however significantly less intensive. The Sulina arm has no advanced delta, it was significantly modified – straightened for navigation purposes, and in the lowest section, at falling into the sea it is limited by dikes at both sides, for more than 10 km to provide transport of the suspended material from the coastal shallow areas to the more distant sea sections. Actually, under redistribution of the water flow, preservation of the biological diversity of the delta, restoration and rehabilitation of its unique ecosystems needs special concern of scientists, administrations, non-governmental organizations, local communities. Presented material one more time showed both high importance of the delta hydroecosystems on the whole, conditioned by exclusive species richness and diversity, and peculiarities of its individual water bodies, which, in fact, form general unique characteristics. Investigations of the lower Danube and delta by the Romanian and Ukrainian hydrobiologists have been started more than a century ago, since studies of G. P. Bourgugnat [1870], A. A. Ostroumov [1897; 1898]. S. O. Zernov [1908], K. O. Milashevych [1908] and G. Antipa [1914] in the late XIX – early XX cent., G. Shpandl [1926], Yu. M. Markovskiy [1955], A. M. Almazov, K. S. Vladimirova, K. K. Zerov, G. A. Olivari, Ya. V. Roll, Ya. Ya. Tseeb [DUNAY… 1961], V. V. Polishchuk [1974], O. I. Ivanov [1987], T. A. Khar chenko [KHARCHENKO 1993, KHARCHENKO, LYASHENKO 1998, KHARCHENKO, LYASHENKO, BASHMAKOVA 2000, 2001] in the middle and late XX cent., to the studies of the last decades – by Ukrainian scien tists S. O. Afanasyev [2008], A. V. Liashenko and K. Ye. Zorina-Sakharova 209

AFTERWORD

[2002–2017], T. M. Dyachenko [2006, 2011] and by Romanian researchers [DANUBE…2006]. Modern period of hydroecological investigations of the Danube River is characterized not only by integral studies of the aquatic ecosystems, biotic communities and populations of the aquatic organisms, but by profound analysis of the intra-waterbody processes, particularly under the impact of the anthropogenic and climatogenic factors. More than 60 years of regular investigations of the institute of hydrobiology NAS of Ukraine, started just after the WWII, enabled to create original bank of hydrobiological data, to establish certain regularities of the biodiversity forming, functioning of the aquatic coenoses, to evaluate production potential and water quality of the Romano-Ukrainian river stretch and its delta. Over the years 2005–2012 the Institute of hydrobiology along with other institutions of the National Academy of sciences of Ukraine participated in the National program of integral ecological monitoring at restoration and operation of the deep navigational channel «Danube – Black Sea», where it was responsible for the block of hydroecological issues of the freshwater part of the Kiliya delta. In fact, the chapter «Suggestions to development of the monitoring scheme of the water bodies of the Danube delta» includes results of this work. Implementation of the joint international monitoring in the lower Danube and delta over the last years has become urgent. The main problem was and still is implementation in Ukraine of the Directive 2000/60/EC principles. In the EU-member states of the Danube basin monitoring of the water bodies status on the basis of comparison of the reference characteristics with the actual, obtained in the field surveys, characteristics of biological and supportive hydromorphological and physico-chemical quality elements is obligatory. After ratification of the Danube convention Ukraine in fact has undertaken obligations to present data of the Danube River monitoring as it is prescribed by Directive 2000/60/EC already in 2002, however only after signing of EU-Ukraine Association Agreement this approach was finally approved in the Ukrainian legislation. Adoption of the Cabinet of Ministers Decree of September 19, 2018 N 758 «On approval of Procedure of the state monitoring of waters», which was prepared with participation of the 210

AFTERWORD

specialists of the Institute of hydrobiology, became a final step towards harmonization of the EU and Ukrainian legislation in the field of evaluation of the ecological state of the surface water bodies. It should be stressed, that the presented monograph has the advantage even of the most comprehensive publications of the last years because it contains maximum complete species lists of the main groups of the aquatic organisms, moreover, they are arranged separately for different investigation periods and for individual sites in different types of the water bodies. This is essential in view of realization of the Directive 2000/60/EU approaches regarding establishing of the reference parameters and in further assessment of the ecological state of the surface water bodies of the lower Danube and the Danube delta. On the whole it should be stated that hydroecological studies of the Danube River entered a new phase, which is characterized by international integration and cooperation on the principles of application of common approaches and attraction of the international teams for solution of both purely scientific, fundamental tasks and applied, water management issues and problems.

211

Післямова

Підведено підсумок ще одного етапу досліджень дельти Дунаю, другої після Волги дельти Європи, створеною стоком однієї річки. Дунай – міжнародна річка, її басейн охоплює території 18 країн, а саму дельту поділяють дві з них – Україна та Румунія. Пониззя та дельта Дунаю мають не тільки європейське, а й загальнопланетарне значення. Тому в роботі зроблено акценти саме на результатах спільних міжнародних досліджень. Дунай належить до найбільших річок світу і має характерну особ ливість: протікаючи за Джердапською греблею на ділянці майже 1000 км у відносно природному, мало одамбованому руслі, води річки набувають високої каламутності, зумовленої значною кількістю зважених наносів. Їхній середньорічний вміст за багаторічний період спостережень становить 170–200 г/м3 з максимальними величинами до 2,3 кг/м3, річний обсяг наносів може сягати до 100 млн тонн на рік. Велика концентрація зважених часток зумовлює розвиток розгалуженої вторинної, або морської дельти, яка постійно розширюється в бік моря. Дельта починається в районі Ізмаїльського Чаталу біфуркацією основного русла Дунаю на два рукави: Тульчинський (румунський) та Кілійський, по якому проходить україно-румунський кордон. Тульчинський рукав доволі короткий (14 кілометрів), нижче м. Тульча він розгалужується на Сулинський та Свято-Георгіївський рукави. Гідробіологічні характеристики різних рукавів мають свої особливості, що підтвердили й наші дослідження. Іноді говорять про дельти окремих рукавів: дельта Кілійського рукава, Свято-Георгіївського та Сулинського. Вони історично розвивалися по-різному та зазнали різного антропогенного втручання. Наймолодшою є вторинна дельта Кілійського рукава, що розташована нижче м. Вилкове, процес її утворення почався близько 300 років тому і продовжується у наш час. Він зумовлений такими гідрофізичними процесами, як турбулентне перемішування водних мас, седи212

AFTERWORD

ментація зважених часток, формування донних ґрунтів, змішування прісних і солоних вод, затоплення великих територій тощо. За впадіння Дунаю у море та зниженні швидкості течії завислі частки осідають, утворюються прибережні коси, опріснені затоки (кути), внутрішньодельтові озера і острови. Активна частина Кілійської дельти, або зона висунення, гідравлічно пов’язана з річковим стоком і морем. Ост рови покриті озерно-болотною рослинністю (плавнями). Неповторні водно-територіальні комплекси рясніють унікальними біотопами, які забезпечують можливість існування не тільки звичайних, широко поширених, але й рідкісних ендемічних і реліктових видів, представників тваринного і рослинного світу, що збереглися з часів минулих геологічних епох. Певною мірою схожі процеси відбуваються у передній, морській частині дельти Свято-Георгіївського рукава, але у значно менших масштабах. Сулинський рукав не має дельти висунення, він зазнав суттєвого антропогенного впливу, був спрямлений для зручності судноплавства, а в кінцевій частині, при впадінні у море, затиснутий з двох боків дамбами завдовжки понад 10 км для забезпечення виносу зважених часток із зони прибережної мілини подалі у море на ділянку звалу глибин. Збереження біологічного різноманіття дельти, відтворення та розвитку її унікальних екосистем на сьогодні, в умовах перерозподілу водного стоку та інших антропогенних впливів потребує особливої уваги широкого загалу як вчених, можновладців, так і пересічних небайдужих громадян. Представлені у роботі матеріали ще раз показали як високу природну цінність гідроекосистем дельти загалом, зумовлену надзвичайним видовим багатством та різноманіттям, так і особливості її окремих водних об’єктів, з яких, власне, й складаються унікальні загальні показники. Вивчення пониззя та дельти Дунаю українськими та румунськими гідробіологами має вже понад сторічну історію, від досліджень Дж. Р. Боургугната [BOURGUIGNAT 1870], А. А. Остроумова [OSTRO UMOV 1897, 1898], С. О. Зернова [ZERNOV 1908], К. О. Мілашевича [MILASHEVICH 1908] та Г. Антипи [ANTIPA 1914] кінця позаминулого – 213

AFTERWORD

початку минулого сторіччя, Г. Шпандля [SPANDL 1926], Ю. М. Мар ковського [MARKOVSKYI 1955], А. М. Алмазова, К. С. Владимирової, К. К. Зерова, Г. А. Оливари, Я. В. Ролла, Я. Я. Цееба [DUNAY…1961], В. В. По ліщука [POLISCHUK 1974], О. І. Іванова [IVANOV 1987], Т. А. Хар чен ка [KHARCHENKO 1993, KHARCHENKO, LYASHENKO 1998, KHARCHENKO, LYASHENKO, BASHMAKOVA 2000, 2001] – середини та кінця минулого століття, до робіт дослідників останніх десятиліть – українських науковців С. О. Афанасьєва [AFANASYEV et al. 2008], А. В. Ляшенка та Зоріної-Сахарової [LIASHENKO, ZORINA-SAKHA ROVA 2002–2017], Т. М. Дьяченко [2006, 2011] та румунських дослідників [DANUBE…2006]. Сучасний період гідроекологічних досліджень річки характеризується не тільки комплексним вивченням водних екосистем, біотичних угруповань та окремих популяцій гідробіонтів, але й глибоким аналізом внутрішньоводойменних процесів, що в них відбуваються, зокрема під впливом антропогенних та кліматогенних факторів. Систематичні, понад 60-річні дослідження Інституту гідробіології НАН України, розпочаті одразу після війни, дозволили створити оригінальний банк гідробіологічних даних, встановити певні закономірності формування біорізноманіття, функціонування водних ценозів, виконати оцінки біо продукційного потенціалу і якості вод українсько-румунської ділянки річки та її дельти. З 2005 по 2012 роки Інститут гідробіології разом з іншими установами НАН України брав участь у державній програмі Комплексного екологічного моніторингу довкілля при відновленні та експлуатації глибоководного суднового ходу Дунай – Чорне море, де відповідав за блок гідроекологічних проблем прісноводної частини Кілійської дельти. Власне до розділу “Пропозиції до розробки схеми моніторингу водних об’єктів дельти Дунаю” увійшли напрацювання за результатами цієї роботи. Питання втілення в пониззі та дельті Дунаю спільного міжнародного моніторингу в останні роки стало нагальним. Основною проб лемою було й залишається впровадження в Україні положень Директиви 2000/60/ЄС. У придунайських країнах членах ЄС проведення 214

AFTERWORD

моніторингу та класифікації водних об’єктів на основі порівняння референційних показників з актуальними, отриманими в ході натурних досліджень біологічних та підтримуючих гідроморфологічних та фізико-хімічних показників, є обов’язковим. Україна, ратифікувавши Дунайську конвенцію, фактично зобов’язалася надавати дані моніторингу Дунаю у форматі Директиви 2000/60/ЄС ще в 2002 році, але тільки після підписання Угоди про Асоціацію Україна/ЄС такий підхід отримав остаточне визнання в Законах і підзаконних актах та національних нормативно-правових документах. Прийняття Постанови Кабінету Міністрів України від 19 вересня 2018 р. № 758 «Про затвердження Порядку здійснення державного моніторингу вод», у підготовці проекту якого брали участь науковці Інституту гідробіології, стала остаточним кроком у напрямку гармонізації законодавства України та ЄС у галузі оцінки екологічного стану масивів поверхневих вод за європейськими правилами. Зауважимо, що представлена монографія вигідно відрізняється навіть від найбільш вагомих публікацій останніх років тим, що містить максимально повні переліки видів основних груп гідробіонтів, до того ж складених окремо за конкретними типами масивів поверхневих вод та по різним станціям спостережень. Це важливо в плані реалізації підходів Директиви 2000/60/ЄС як для визначення значень референсних показників, так і для подальшої оцінки екологічного стану масивів поверхневих вод пониззя та дельти Дунаю. Загалом можна констатувати, що гідроекологічні дослідження на Дунаї на сьогодні вступили в нову фазу, що характеризується міжнародною інтеграцією та співробітництвом на засадах використання спільних підходів та залучення інтернаціональних команд для вирішення як суто наукових, фундаментальних, так і прикладних, водогосподарських та управлінських питань та проблем.

215

Concluzii Este alcătuit rezumatul încă unei etape de cercetare a Deltei Dunării, a doua după Volga, deltă din Europa, creată prin scurgerea unui fluviu. Dunărea este un fluviu internațional, bazinul său acoperă teritoriile din 18 țări, iar delta însăși este împărțită între două state – Ucraina și România. Sectoarele inferioare și delta Dunării nu au doar o semnificație europeană, ci și o semnificație planetară. Prin urmare, în lucrare este făcut accent anume pe rezultatele cercetărilor internaționale comune. Dunărea unul dintre cele mai mari fluvii din lume și are o trăsătură distinctivă: curgând după defileul Đerdap într-un sector de aproape 1000 km, într-o albie cu diguri naturale relativ puține, apa fluviului devine foarte tulbură datorită unei cantități mari de aluviuni în suspensie. Cantitatea medie anuală a acestora pe parcursul observațiilor timp de mai mulți ani este de 170-200 g/m3, cu valori maxime de până la 2,3 kg/m3, volumul anual de aluviuni poate fi de până la 100 mln. tone pe an. Concentrația mare de particule în suspensie determină dezvoltarea deltei ramificate sau maritime secundare, care este în continuă extindere spre mare. Delta se începe în bifurcatia în zona Ceatalului Izmail prin bifurcația albiei principale a Dunării în două brațe: Tulcea (român) și Chilia, care concomitent alcătuiește hotarul ucrainean-român. Brațul Tulcea este destul de scurt (14 kilometri), în amonte de Tulcea acesta se ramifică în brațul Sulina și brațul Sfântu Gheorghe. Caracteristicile hidrobiologice ale diferitelor brațuri au propriile sale particularități, confirmate de studiul nostru, uneori, vorbim despre deltele unor brațe separate: delta brațului Chilia, delta brațului Sfântu Gheorghe și delta brațului Sulina. Acestea au evoluat istoric în diferite moduri și au fost expuse unor diverse interferențe antropice. Cea mai tânără este delta secundară a brațului Chilia, situată sub orașul Vilcovo, procesul de formare a acesteia a început aproximativ 300 de ani în urmă și continuă până în prezent. Acesta este cauzat de astfel de procese hidrofizice, cum ar fi amestecarea turbulentă a masei de apă, sedimentarea particulelor aluviale, formarea solurilor de fund, amestecarea apelor dulci și sărate, inundarea teritoriilor mari etc. La vărsarea Dunării în mare și reduce216

AFTERWORD

rea vitezei curentului, particulele în suspensie se sedimentează, se formează limbe de coastă, golfuri desalinizate (colțuri), lacuri și insule în interiorul deltei. Partea activă a deltei Chilia sau zona de avansare este legată hidraulic cu debitul fluviului și marea. Insulele sunt acoperite cu vegetație lacustră (baltă). Complexele incomparabile de apă și terenuri sunt bogate în habitate unice, care oferă posibilitatea existenței nu numai a unor specii obișnuite, răspândite, dar și celor rare, endemice și relicve, reprezentând lumea animală și vegetală, care s-a păstrat din epocile geologice trecute. Într-o oarecare măsură, procese similare au loc și în sectorul anterior în partea de mare a deltei Sfântu Gheorghe, dar într-o proporție mult mai mică. Brațul Sulina nu are o deltă de extindere, acesta a suferit un impact semnificativ antropogen, a fost îndreptat pentru confortul navigației și în final, la vărsarea în mare este înconjurat din ambele părți de baraje pe o distanță mai mare de 10 km pentru a asigura îndepărtarea particulelor în suspensie din zona bancului de coastă spre mare în zona pantei continentale. Conservarea diversității biologice a deltei, reproducerea și dezvoltarea ecosistemelor sale unice, în prezent, în condițiile redistribuirii debitului de apă și a altor impacte antropogene, necesită o atenție deosebită a publicului larg, atât din partea savanților, autorităților, cât și din partea cetățenilor obișnuiți, neindiferenți. Materialele prezentate în lucrare au demonstrat încă o dată valoarea naturală înaltă a sistemelor hidroecologice ale deltei în general, datorită bogăției și diversității extraordinare a florei și faunei, precum și particularităților obiectelor acvatice individuale, care, de fapt, constituie indicatori generali unici. Studiul teritoriului pe cursul inferior al apei și a deltei Dunării de către hidrobiologii ucraineni și români numără mai mult de un secol, începând de la cercetările lui J.R.Bourgugnat [BOURGUIGNAT 1870], A.A.Ostroumov [OSTROUMOV 1897; 1898] S.O.Zernov [ZERNOV 1908], K.O.Milașevici [MILASHEVICH 1908], G.Antipa [ANTIPA 1914] de la sfârșitul secolului precedent celui trecut – începutul secolului trecut, G.Șpandlea [SPANDL 1926], Iu.M.Marcovschii [MARKOVSKYI 1955], A.M.Almazov, K.S.Vladimirov, K.K.Zerov, G.A.Olivar, Ia.V.Rolla, Ia.Ia. Țeeba [DUNAY…1961], V.V.Polișciuc [POLISCHUK 1974], O.I.Ivanov [IVANOV 1987], T.A.Harcenco 217

AFTERWORD

[KHARCHENKO 1993, KHARCHENKO, LYASHENKO 1998, KHARCHENKO, LYASHENKO, BASHMAKOVA 2000, 2001] – jumătatea și sfârșitul secolului trecut, până la lucrările savanților contemporani S.O.Afanasiev [AFANASYEV et al. 2008], A.V.Liașenco și Zorina-Saharova [LIASHENKO, ZORINA-SAKHAROVA 2002-2017], T.M.Diacenco [2006, 2011] și cercetători români [DANUBE…2006]. Perioada modernă de cercetări hidroecologice a fluviului este caracterizată nu numai prin studiul complex al ecosistemelor acvatice, grupurilor biotice și a populațiilor separate de hidrobionți, dar și prin analiza aprofundată a proceselor din interiorul acvariului, care apar în special sub influența factorilor antropogeni și climatogeni. Studiile sistematice, efectuate timp de peste 60 de ani de Institutul de Hidrobiologie de pe lângă Academia Națională de Științe din Ucraina, s-au început imediat după război, au contribuit la crearea băncii originale de date hidrobiologice, la stabilirea unor legități a formării biodiversității, a funcționării cenozei acvatice, la evaluarea potențialului de bio-producție și a calității apei în secțiunea ucrainean-român a fluviului și a deltei acestuia. Din anul 2005 până în anul 2012, Institutul de Hidrobiologie, împreună cu alte instituții din cadrul Academiei Naționali de Științe din Ucraina a participat la programul de stat de monitorizare complexă a mediului ecologic în timpul restabilirii și exploatării șenalului navigabil adânc Dunărea-Marea Neagră, unde a fost responsabil de analiza problemelor legate de sectorul cu apă dulce din delta Chilia. De fapt, capitolul ”Propuneri pentru elaborarea schemelor de monitorizare a obiectelor acvatice din delta Dunării“ conține date, obținute în rezultatul acestei lucrări. Problema implementării în teritoriul pe cursul inferior al apei și în delta Dunării a monitorizării internaționale comune a devenit urgent în ultimii ani. Principala problemă a fost implimentarea a dispozițiilor Directivei 2000/60/CE în Ucraina. În țările dunărene, membre UE, monitorizarea și clasificarea obiectele acvatice în baza comparație indicatorilor referențiali cu cei reali, obținuți în timpul studiilor de teren ale indicatorilor biologici și de suport hidromorfologici și fizico-chimici, sunt obligatorii. Ucraina, ratificând Convenția Dunării, s-a angajat, de altfel, să furnizeze datele de monitorizare a Dunării sub forma Directivei 2000/60/CE încă din anul 2002, însă 218

AFTERWORD

numai după semnarea Acordului de asociere Ucraina/UE această abordare a fost recunoscută în final în Legile și actele legislative și actele normative naționale. Adoptarea Rezoluției Cabinetului de Miniștri al Ucrainei din 19 septembrie 2018 nr. 758 „Cu privire la aprobarea procedurii de implementare a monitorizării de stat a apelor”, în elaborarea căreia au participat cercetători ai Institutului de Hidrobiologie, a devenit ultimul pas spre armonizarea legislației Ucrainei și UE în domeniul evaluării stării ecologice a obiectelor acvatice de suprafață conform regulilor europene. Reținem că monografia prezentată se distinge favorabil chiar și de cele mai importante publicații din ultimii ani, prin faptul că conține cele mai complete liste de specii din principalele grupe de hidrobionți, pe lângă acestea, alcătuite separat în funcție de tipurile de obiecte acvatice de suprafață și diferite stații de monitorizare, ceea ce est important în ceea ce privește implimentarea abordării din Directiva 2000/60/CE, atât pentru definirea valorilor de referință, cât și pentru evaluarea ulterioară a stării de mediu a apelor de suprafață din teritoriul pe cursul inferior al apei și din delta Dunării. În general, se poate afirma că în prezent studiile hidroecologice a fluviului Dunărea au intrat într-o nouă fază, caracterizată prin integrarea și cooperarea internațională pe baza utilizării unor abordări comune și a implicării echipelor internaționale în rezolvarea aspectelor și problemelor pur științifice, fundamentale și aplicate din domeniul gospodării și gestionării apelor.

219

References 1. Afanasyev S. A. (2002) Development of European Approaches to Biological Assessment of the State of Hydroecosystems and Their Application to the Monitoring of Ukrainian Rivers. Hydrobiol. J. 38(4): 13–148. 2. Afanasyev S. A., Liashenko A. V., Zorina-Sakharova Ye. Ye., Romanenko Ye. A. (2008) Phytophilous Macrofauna as the Index of the Ecological State of Water Bodies of the Kiliya Delta of the Danube River. Ibid. 44(4): 3–13. 3. Aleksandrov B., Boltachev A., Kharchenko T. et al. (2007) Trends of aquatic alien species invasion in Ukraine. Aquatic invasions 2: 215–242. 4. Aleksandrov B. G., Kharchenko T. A., Lyashenko A. V. & Parchuk G. V. (1999) Aquatic organisms. Pp. 157–226 in: Biodiversity of the Danube Biosphere Reserve, protection and management. (In Russian) 5. Antipa Gr. (1914) Delta Dunării, Bucureşti, Editura Ceres. 6. AQEM CONSORTIUM (2002) Manual for the application of the AQEM system. A comprehensive method to assess European streams using benthic macroinvertebrates, developed for the purpose of the Water Framework Directive. Version 1.0: 202 p. 7. Armitage P. D, Moss D., Wright J.F., Furse M.T. (1983) The performance of a new biological water quality scores system based on macroinvertebrates over a wide range of unpolluted running-water sites. Water Res. 17: 333-347 8. Asaul Z. I. (1975) Vyznachnik evglenovykh vodorostey Ukrainskoi RSR. – Kuiv: Nauk. dumka, 1975. – 408 s. (Determinative key of Euglenophyta of the Ukrainian SSR) (in Ukrainian). 9. Bacesco M. (1934) Contribution a l’étude des Mysides de la mer Noire, ainsi que des li-mans et de lacs en retation avec la mer on avec le Darnube. Ann. Sci. Univ. Jassy, 19(1–4): 317–330. 10. Balushkina E. V., Vinberg G.G. (1979) The relationship between weight and long of body of plankton animals. Pp. 169–172 in: Obschie osnovyi izucheniya vodnyih ekosistem. (General principles of investigations of the aquatic ecosystems. Leningrad, Nauka. (In Russian). 11. Bauernfeind E., Moog O. & Weichselbaumer P. (2002): Ephemeroptera. In: Moog, O. (ed.): Fauna Aquatica Austriaca, Lieferung 2002, Wasser wirts chaftskataster, Bundesministerium Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Wien. 12. Biological quality of watercourses. Determination of the biotic index based on aquatic macroinvertebrates. Belgian standard T92-402. Belgian institute for normalization. Brussels (1984) 35 pp. 13. Borcea J. (1924) Faune survivante de type caspiandans les limans d’eau donce de Roumanie. Nota préliminaire. Univ. Jassv. 13(3/4): 207–223. (In French) 14. Botnariuc N., Candea V. (1953) Contribuþii la cunoasterea larvelor de

220

REFERENCES

Tendipedidae din Delta Dunãrii. Buletin stiintific, Secþiunea de stiinþe Biologice, Agronomice, Geologice si Geografice 5(3): 525–541. (in Romanian) 15. Botnariuc N., Cure V. (1959) Les associations de Chironomides (larves) du delta du Danube et l’évolution géomorphologique du delta. Polskie Archiwum Hydrobiologii, 6(19): 9-32. (In French) 16. Botnariuc N., Ignat G., Diaconu I., Vädineanu A. (1987). L’evolution de l’etat trophique des sistemes aquatiques caracteristiques au Delta du Danube. Rev. Roum. Biol., Biol. Anim. 32: 121–127 (In French). 17. Bourguignat J. R. (1870) Mollusques nouveaux, litigieux ou peu connus. Revue et Magasin de Zoologie pure et appliquée et de Sériciculture Comparée 2(22): 14–30, 87–97, 166–171 (In French). 18. Brezeanu G., Popescu-Arion E. (1962) Beitrage zum hydrochemichen und hidrobiologischen Studium des St. Georg arms (Donaudelta). Edit. Acad. R.P.R., Revue de Biologie, 7: 159-168 (In German). 19. Tsalolikhin S. Ya (ed.) (1994) Opredelitel’ presnovodnyh bespozvonochnyh Rossii i sopredel’nyh territorii’. T. 1. Nizshie bespozvonochnye. (Determinative key of freshwater invertebrates of Russia and adjacent countries. Ed. by Tsalolikhin. Vol.1. Lower invertebrates) St Petersburg. 200 pp. (In Russian). 20. Tsalolikhin S. Ya (ed.) (1995) Opredelitel’ presnovodnyh bespozvonochnyh Rossii i sopredel’nyh territorii’. Т 2. Rakoobraznye. (Determinative key of freshwater invertebrates of Russia and adjacent countries. Ed. by Tsalolikhin. Vol. 2. Crustacea) St Petersburg. 632 pp. (In Russian). 21. Tsalolikhin S. Ya (ed.) (1997) Opredelitel’ presnovodnyh bespozvonochnyh Rossii i sopredel’nyh territorii’. Т 3. Paukoobraznyeju. Nizshie nasekomye. (Determinative key of freshwater invertebrates of Russia and adjacent countries. Vol. 3. Arachnida. Lower Insecta) St Petersburg. 448 pp. (In Russian). 22. Tsalolikhin S. Ya (ed.) (1999) Opredelitel’ presnovodnyh bespozvonochnyh Rossii i sopredel’nyh territorii’. Т. 4. Vysshie nasekomye. Dvukrylye. (Determinative key of freshwater invertebrates of Russia and adjacent countries. Vol. 4. Higher Insecta. Diptera.) St Petersburg. 1000 pp. (In Russian). 23. Tsalolikhin S. Ya (ed.) (2004) Opredelitel’ presnovodnyh bespozvonochnyh Rossii i sopredel’nyh territorii’. Т 6. Molluski. Policheti. Nemertini. (Determinative key of freshwater invertebrates of Russian and adjacent countries. Vol. 6. Mollusca. Polychaeta. Nemertina) St Petersburg. 528 pp. (In Russian). 24. Carausu S. (1937) Trois Gammarides de type Caspien, nouveaux pour le bassin Azovo-Pontique. Ann. Soi. Univ. Jassy (se. natur.) 23: 46–59. (In French). 25. Chekanovskaya O.V. (1962) Vodnyie maloshchetinkovyie chervi fauny SSSR. (Aquatic Oligochaeta of USSR fauna). Moscow, Leningrad, Nauka. 411 pp. (In Russian) 26. Chervona knyga Ukrainy. Roslynnyi svit. (2009) (Red Book of Ukraine. Plants) Kyiv, Globalkonsalting. 900 pp. (In Ukrainian)

221

REFERENCES

27. Chervona knyga Ukrainy. Tvarinniy svit. (2009) (Red Book of Ukraine. Animals) Kyiv, Globalkonsalting. 624 pp. (In Ukrainian). 28. Danube delta. Genesis and Biodiversity (2006). Leiden. Backhuys Publishers, 445 pp. 29. David C., Hulea O. (2000). Water Quality Monitoring in the Danube Delta. Pp. 429–435 in: Proceedings – International Workshop on Information for Sustainable Water Management. J. G. Timmerman, W. Cofino, R. Enderlein, W. Julich, P. Literathy, J. Martin, P. Ross, N. Thyssen, R. Turner and R. Ward (eds). Monitoring Tailor-Made III. Nunspeet. 30. De Pauw. N., Hawkes H.A. (1993). Biological monitoring of river water quality. Pp. 87–111 in: River water quality monitoring and control. Walley. W.J. & S. Judd (eds.) UK, Ashton University. 31. Diaconu I. (1985) Structura si rolul oligochetelor din bentosul ghiolurilor Matita si Merhei (1980–1982). Delta Dunarii, St.si com. De ecol. 1: 245–251. 32. Dobrochaeva D. N., Kotov M. I., Prokudin Yu. N i dr. (1987). Opredelitel vysshikh rasteniy Ukrainy. (Determinative key of higher plants of Ukraine.) Kiev, Nauk. Dumka, 548 pp. (In Russian). 33. Douda K., Lopes-Lima M., Hinzmann M. et al. (2013). Biotic homogenization as a threat to native affiliate species: fish introductions dilute freshwater mussel’s resources. Diversity and Distributions 19: 933–942. 34. Dyachenko T. M. (2006) Makrofiti. Pp. 38–58 in: Metody gidroekologichnih doslidzhen poverhnevih vod. (Methods of hydroecological investigations of surface waters. Kyiv, Logos. (In Ukrainian) 35. Dyachenko T. N. (2011) Dynamics of the higher aquatic vegetation of water bodies of the Danube Kiliya Delta under anthropogenic impact. Hydrobiol. J. 47(1): 29–40. 36. Dunay i pridunajskie vodojomy v predelach SSSR (1961). Trudy Instituta gidrobiologii 36: 1–312. (Danube and Danube water bodies within the USSR) (In Russian). 37. Eder E., Hödl, W., Moog., O. et al. (1995): Crustacea. In: Moog, O. (Ed.): Fauna Aquatica Austriaca, Lieferungen 1995, 2002. Wasserwirtschaftskataster, Bundesministerium Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Wien. 38. Enaceanu V. (1953) Contributiuni la studiul hidrobiologie-piscicol al regiunii Matita-Merhei (Lopatna) Delta Dunarii. Buletinul Institutului Cercetari si Proiectari Piscicole 12(2): 21–43 (In Romanian) 39. Etingova A.A. (2002) Structural and functional characteristics of communities of phytophilous invertebrates of the Kiliya Delta of the Danube River. Hydrobiol. J. 38(6): 35–50. 40. EU Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC. Definitions of Main Terms. (2006) Kyiv: 240 pp.

222

REFERENCES

41. Findlay H. R., King G. M., Watling L. (1989) Efficacy of phospholipidus analysis in determining microbial biomass in sediments. Appl. Env. Microbiol. 55(11): 2888–2893. 42. Finogenova N.P. (1968) Oligochaetes of the Soviet section of the Danube River and the Danube lakes. Zool. zhurn. 47(7): 1002–1010 (In Russian). 43. Graf W., Grasser U., Waringer J. (2002) Trichoptera. In: Moog, O. (ed.): Fauna Aquatica Austriaca, Lieferung 2002. Wasserwirtschaftskataster, Bundes ministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Wien. 44. Grossu A. V. (1963) Noi contribujii la cunosterea molustelor din cursul inferior al Dunärii. Hidrobiologia (Bucuresti) 4: 337–359 (In Romanian). 45. Grossu A. V., Paladian G. (1956) Contribuţii la studiul moluştelor din Deltă şi bazinul Dunării inferioare. Analele Institutului de Cercetări Piscicole 1: 401– 410. 46. Hörner K., Moog O., Sporka F. (1995) Oligochaeta. In: Moog, O. (Ed.): Fauna Aquatica Austriaca, Lieferungen 1995, 2002. Wasserwirtschaftskataster, Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Wien. 47. International Commission for Protection of Danube River. TNMN Yearbook 2005. Water Quality in the Danube River Basin 48. Ionică D., Simon-Gruiţă A. (1985) Noi abordări metodologice în ecologia microbiană privind cuantificarea biomasei comunităţilor microbiene. St. Cerc. Biol. Anim. 47(2): 141–144. (In Romanian) 49. Ivanov A. I. (1987) Phytoplankton ustievych oblastey rek severo-zapadnogo Prichernomoriya. (Phytoplankton of the mouth areas of the rivers of the northwestern Black Sea region). Kyiv. 212 pp. (In Russian). 50. Jäch M., Kodada J., Moog O. et al. (1995) Coleoptera. In: Moog, O. (Ed.): Fauna Aquatica Austriaca, Lieferungen 1995, 2002. Wasserwirtschaftskataster, Bundesministerium für für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Wien. 51. Janecek B. F. U., Moog O., Moritz C. et al. (2002): Chironomidae. In: Moog, O. (Ed.): Fauna Aquatica Austriaca, Lieferung 2002. Wasserwirts chaftskataster, Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Wien. 52. Joint Danube Survey 2. Final scientific report. ICPDR – International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (2008). www.icpdr.org 53. Katanskaya V. M. (1981). Vysshaya vodnaya rastitelnost kontinentalnykh vodoyomov SSSR. Metodyi izucheniya. (Aquatic vegetation of continental waters of USSR. Methods of investigation.) Leningrad, Nauka. 187 pp. (In Russian). 54. Kharchenko T. A. (1993) Makrozoobenthos. Pp. 164–178 in: Gidrojekologiya ukrainskogo uchastka Dunaya i sopredel’nykh vodoyomov. (Hydroecology of

223

REFERENCES

the Ukrainian section of the Danube River and adjacent water bodies). Kiev, Naukova Dumka. (In Russian). 55. Kharchenko T. A. (2005) Biodiversity of the Ponto-Caspian relict fauna in the Danube Basin (A review). Hydrobiol. J. 41(2): 57–79. 56. Kharchenko T. A., Lyashenko A. V. (1998) Structural and functional parameters of macrozoobenthos of water ecotones and indicators of the ecotone boundaries. Ibid. 34(2-3): 111–119. 57. Kharchenko T. A., Lyashenko A. V., Boyko S.E. (1988) To the methods of benthic fauna investigation. Gidrobiol. zhurn. 24(5): 76–81 (In Russian). 58. Kharchenko T. A., Liashenko A. V., Bashmakova I. Kh. (2000) Biological diversity of aquatic cenoses and water quality in the lower reaches of the Danube River within the Territory of Ukraine. Hydrobiol. J. 36(2): 3–29. 59. Kharchenko T. A., Lyashenko A. V., Bashmakova I. Kh. (2001) Retrospective analysis of the water quality of the Lower Danube. Ibid. 37(4): 77–92. 60. Koblitskaya A. F. (1981). Opredelitel molodi presnovodnyih ryb. (Determinative key of the freshwater juvenile fishes.) Moscow, Legkaya i pischevaya prom-st. 208 pp. (In Russian). 61. Kohler H. R, Triebskorn R., Sandu C. (2005): Monitoring pollution in river Mures. Bull. of the Internat. Assoc. for Danube Res. (IAD), 11: 1–6. 62. Köhler H-R., Sandu C., Scheil V. et al. (2007): Monitoring ollution in River Mureş, Romania, Part III: Biochemical Effect Markers in Fish and Integrative Reflection. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 127: 47-54. 63. Kokin K. A. (1982) Ecologia vysshych vodnych rastenii. (Ecology of higher aquatic plants). Moscow. 160 pp. (In Russian). 64. Kondrateva N. V. (1968) Syniozelenі vodorostі – Cyanophyta. Ch. 2. Klas gormogonіуovi – Hormogoniophyceae. (Vyznachnik prisnovodnih vodorostey Ukrainskoi RSR. Vyp. 1). (Cyanophyta. Hormogoniophyceae. Determinative key of algae of Ukrainian SSR. Iss. 1.) Kyiv, Naukova dumka. 523 pp. (In Ukrainian) 65. Kononov V. N. (1956) Sanitarno-gigienicheskaja otsenka podzemnych i nazemnych vod, ispolzuemych dlya pityevych i choziaystvennych tseley naseleniya. (Sanitary and hygienic assessment of groundwater and surface waters used for drinking and household purposes of the population). Moscow. 156 pp. (In Russian) 66. Kornyushin A. V., Liashenko A. V. (2004) Fauna of mollusks of the lower reaches of the Danube River within the territory of Ukraine. Hydrobiol. J. 40(3): 5–20. 67. Kutikova L. A. (1970) Kolovratki faunyi SSSR. (Rotifera of USSR fauna). Leningrad, Nauka. 744 pp. (In Russian) 68. Kutikova L. A., Starobogatov E. I. (1977) Opredelitel’ presnovodnyh bes pozvonochnyh Yevropeiskoi’ chasti SSSR (plankton i bentos). (Determinative key of the freshwater invertebrates of the European part of the USSR (plankton and benthos). Leningrad. 510 pp. (In Russian)

224

REFERENCES

69. Liashenko A. V., Meteletskaya Z.G. (2002) Long-term changes in macro zoobenthos of the Kiliya Delta of the Danube River. Hydrobiol. J. 38(6): 15–22. 70. Lyashenko A., Zorina-Sakharova K. (2008) Ecological characteristic of Danube delta water bodies. Pp. 223–228 in: The Danube river basin in a changing world: proceedings of 37th International IAD Conference. Novi Sad. 71. Liashenko A. V., Zorina-Sakharova Ye. Ye. (2009) Comparative characteristics of the indices of invertebrates macrofauna diversity in the Ukrainian and Romanian sections of the Danube River Delta. Hydrobiol. J. 45(6): 17–32. 72. Liashenko A. V., Zorina-Sakharova Ye. Ye. (2012) Biological indication of the water quality of the Kiliya Danube Delta by aquatic invertebrates’ fauna. Ibid. 48(6): 51–72. 73. Liashenko A., Zorina-Sakharova K. (2012) Bioindication of water quality on macrofauna invertebrates within Kyliya Danube Delta. Pp. 157–164 in: Living Danube: proceedings of 39th IAD Conference. Szentandre, Hungary. 74. Liashenko A., Zorina-Sakharova K. (2014) Macroinvertebrates of the marine edge and fore-delta of Kyliya branch of the Danube River. Acta zool. bulg. 7: 19–25. 75. Liashenko A., Zorina-Sakharova K. (2015) Macroinvertebrates of the marine edge and fore-delta of the Kiliya Branch of the Danube River delta. Hydrobiol. J. 51(2): 3–20. 76. Lyashenko A., Zorina-Sakharova K., Makovskiy V. (2006) Comparative evaluation of invertebrates macrofauna from Kyliya Danube delta. Proceedings of 36th International Conference of IAD. Austrian Committee Danube Research. IAD, Vienna: 255–259. 77. Liashenko A. V., Zorina-Sakharova Ye. Ye., Makovskiy V. V. (2007) Modern state of the macrofauna of invertebrates of the Ukrainian part of the lower reaches of the Danube River. Hydrobiol. J. 43(4): 21–34. 78. Liashenko A. V., Zorina-Sakharova Ye. Ye., Makovskiy V. V. (2010) Dreissena bugensis Andr. (Mollusca, Bivalvia) in the Kiliya Delta of the Danube River. Ibid. 46(3): 112–115. 79. Liashenko A. V., Zorina-Sakharova Ye. Ye., Makovskiy V. V., Sanzhak Yu. O. (2012) Modern state of the Ponto-Caspian complex of the macrofauna of invertebrates in the Lower Reaches of the Danube River within the territory of Ukraine. Ibid. 48(4): 18–37. 80. Liashenko A. V., Zorina-Sakharova Ye. Ye., Sanzhak Yu. O., Makovskiy V. V. (2013) Comparative characteristics of the taxonomic composition of the macrofauna of the Kiliya Delta of the Danube River. Ibid. 49(3): 27–40. 81. Makovskiy V. V., Lyashenko A. V. (2011) Mollusks of the Genus Corbicula in the Ukrainian Section of the Danube River. Ibid. 47(3): 29–37. 82. Geyny S., Sytnik K. M. (1993) Macrophity – indicatory izmeneniy prirodnoy

225

REFERENCES

sredy. (Macrophytes - indicators of changes in the natural environment) Kiev, Naaukova Dumka. 354 pp. (In Russian). 83. Manuylova E.F. (1964) Vetvistousyie rachki (Cladocera) fauny SSSR. (Cladocera of USSR fauna) – Moscow, Leningrad, Nauka. 328 pp. (In Russian). 84. Markovskyi Yu. M. (1955) Fauna bespozvonochnykh nizovyev rek Ukrainy, usloviya ee obitaniya i puti ispol’zovaniya. Chast’ III. Vodoemy Kilii’skoi’ del’ty Dunaya. (Invertebrate fauna in the lower reaches of the rivers of Ukraine, the conditions of its habitat and way of use. Part III. Reservoirs Kiliya the Danube Delta) Kiev. 280 p. (In Russian). 85. Matvienko O. M. (1965) Zolotysti vodorosti – Chrysophyta (Vyznachnik prisno vodnykh vodorostey URSR. Vyp. 3, ch. 1). (Determinative key of of Chrysophyta). Kyiv, Nauk. dumka: 368 pp. (In Ukrainian). 86. Metcalfe J. L. (1989) Biological water quality assessment of running waters based on macroinvertebrate communities: history and present status in Europe. Environmental pollution. 60: 101–139. 87. Metody gidroekologichnih doslidzhen poverhnevih vod. Za red. V.D. Romanenka. (2006) (Methods of hydroecological surveys of surface waters.) Kyiv, LOGOS. 408 pp. (In Ukrainian). 88. Metodika ekologichnoi otsinki yakosti poverhnevih vod za vidpovidnimi kategoriyami (1998) (Methodology of ecological assessment of surface water quality according to the relevant categories). Kyiv, SYMVOL-T. 28 pp. (In Ukrainian). 89. Milashevich K. O. (1908) Molljuski, sobrannye vo vremja ekspedicii S. A. Zernova na minonosce N 264 na r. Dunai’ s 28 iyunia po 3 iyulia 1907 g. (Mussels collected during the expedition on the torpedo boat N 264 in the Danube River from 28 June to 3 July 1907) Zap. St Peterburgskoy Akademii nauk 6: 991–996. (In Russian). 90. Monchenko V. I. (1974) Chelyustnorotyie, tsiklopoobraznyie. Tsiklopy. Fauna Ukrainy, T. 27, vyp. 3. (Copepoda, Cyclopoida. Fauna of Ukraine. Vol. 27, iss. 3.) Kyiv, Naukova dumka. 450 pp. (In Russian). 91. Morduhay-Boltovskoy F. D. (1975) Metodika izucheniya biogeotsenozov vnutrennih vodoemov. (Methods of studying of hydrobiocenoses of inland waters.) Moscow. 241 pp. (In Russian) 92. Moroz T. G. (1981) Makrozoobentos limanov i nizovyev rek severo-zapadnogo prichernomorya. (Macrozoobenthos estuaries and lower reaches of the rivers of north-western Black Sea.) Kiev 188 pp. (In Russian) 93. Motas C., Bacesco M. (1937) Hypania invalida Gruke et Hypanida kowalewskyi dans les freuves de la Roumaine. Ann. Sci. Univ. Jassy, 24: 271–280. (In French) 94. Movchan Yu. V. (2011) Ryby Ukrainy (vyznachnik-dovidnyk). (Fishes of Ukraine. Determinative key and reference book.) Kyiv, Zoloti Vorota. 444 pp. (In Ukrainian).

226

REFERENCES

95. Neascu P., Teodorescu I. (1985) Distribuţia în habitat a larvelor de mirmeleonidae din Delta Dunării. Natura 36: 42-44. (In Romanian) 96. Nesemann H. & Reischütz, P.L. (1995) Gastropoda. In: Moog, O. (Ed.): Fauna Aquatica Austriaca, Lieferungen. Wasserwirtschaftskataster, Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Wien. 97. Nesemann, H. & Moog, O. (1995): Hirudinea. In: Moog, O. (Ed.): Fauna Aquatica Austriaca, Lieferungen 1995. Wasserwirtschaftskataster, Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Wien. 98. Odum Yu. (1986) Ekologiya. T. 1–2. (Ekology. Vol. 1–2.) Moscow, 704 pp. (In Russian, transl. from English) 99. Olivari G. A. (1961) Benthos of the Soviet section of the Danube River. Tr. In-ta gidrobiologii AN USSR 13: 145-165. (In Russian) 100. Ostroumov A. A. (1897). About hydrobiological studies in the mouths of rivers in the southern Russia in 1896. Izv. Peterburg. Akademii nauk 6(4): 104–107. (In Russian) 101. Ostroumov A. A. (1898) The brief report on the hydrobiological studies in 1897. Izv. Peterburg. Akademii nauk 7(2): 78–91. (In Russian) 102. Palamar-Mordvintseva G.M. (1984) Kon’yugati – Conjugatophyceae. Ch. 1. Mezotenievi – Mesotaeniales, gonatozigovi – Gonatozygales, desmidievi – Desmidiales. (Viznachnik prisnovodnih vodorostey URSR. T.VIII, ch. 1). – Kyiv: 510 p. (Conjugatophyceae. Mesotaeniales, Gonatozygales, Desmidiales. Key Book of determination of freshwater algae of Ukraine V.VIII, part 1) (In Ukrainian). 103. Palamar-Mordvintseva G.M. (1986) Kon’yugati – Conjugatophyceae. Ch. 2. desmidievi – Desmidiales. (Viznachnik prisnovodnih vodorostey URSR. T.VIII, ch. 2). – Kyiv: 320 p. (Conjugatophyceae. Desmidiales. Key Book of deter mination of freshwater algae of Ukraine V.VIII, part 2) (In Ukrainian). 104. Pankratova V. Ya. (1970) Lichinki i kukolki komarov podsemeystva Chironomidae fauny SSSR. (Diptera, Chironomidae = Tendopedidae). (Larvae and pupae of Chironomidae of USSR fauna (Diptera, Chironomidae=Tendopedidae) Leningrad. 341 pp. (In Russian) 105. Pankratova V. Ya. (1983) Lichinki i kukolki komarov podsemeystva Orthocladiinae fauny SSSR. (Diptera, Chironomidae = Tendopedidae). – (Larvae and pupae of Orthocladiinae of USSR fauna (Diptera, Chironomidae=Tendopedidae)) Leningrad. 295 pp. (In Russian) 106. Pantle R., Buck H. (1955) Die biologische Uberwaschung der Gewasser und Darstellung der Ergebnisse. Gas- und Wasserfach. – B. 96, N 98: 1–604. (In German) 107. Papchenkov V. G. (2003) About classification of macrophytes of water bodies and water courses. Pp.23–26 in: Gidrobotanika. Metodologiya, metody. (Hydrobotany, Methodology, methods.) Rybinsk. (In Russian).

227

REFERENCES

108. Pesenko Yu. A. (1982) Printsipy i metody kolichestvennogo analiza v faunisticheskikh issledovaniyakh. (Principles and methods of quantitative analysis in faunistic studies) Moscow. 287 pp. (In Russian) 109. Polischuk V. V. (1974) Gidrofauna ponizzya Dunaju v mezhax Ukrainy. (Hydrofauna of lower Danube in Ukraine.) Kyiv, Naukova Dumka, 420 pp. (In Ukrainian) 110. Popescu V. (1963). Studiul hidrobiologic al Bratului Sulina. Hidrobiologia 4: 215–255. (In Romanian) 111. Popescu–Gorj A., Popescu E., Georgescu I. (1957). Studiul hidrobiologic piscieol al complexului Pardina (Delta Dunärii). An. Inst. Cere. Project. Piscicole, ser. nov. 1–4: 51–104. (In Romanian) 112. Popescu–Marinescu V., Zinevici V. (1968a). Date cantitative si calitative asupra faunei fitofile de pe Vegetafia aevaticä dura din Delta Dunärii. Hidrobiologia, 9: 129-143. (In Romanian) 113. Popescu–Marinescu V., Zinevici V. (1968b). La faune phytophyle vivant sur certaines especes de macrophytes emergees du Delta du Danube. Trav. Mus. Hist. Nat. “Grigore Antipa”, 8: 235–242. (In French) 114. Puzachenko Yu.G. (1989) Ecosistemy v kriticheskich sostoyaniyach. (Ecosystems in critical states) Moscow. 156 pp. (In Russian). 115. Raspopov I.M. (1985) Vysshaya vodnaya rastitelnost bolshikh ozer severozapada SSSR. (Macrophytes of big lakes of northwest of USSR) Leningrad. 199 pp. (In Russian) 116. Risnoveanu G., Ignat G., Vadineanu A. et al. (1997) The state of the benthic community of the Danube Delta Lakes-A consequence of eutrophication. Rev. Rom. Biol.-Biol. Anim (Bucharest) 42(2): 227–235. 117. Risnoveanu G., Vadineanu A. (2000) Evaluarea rolului asociatiilor si populatiilor in functionarea sistemelor ecologice. Studiu de caz: oligochetele acvatice din Dunarea interior si Delta Dunarii. 240 pp. (In Romanian) 118. Romanenko V. D. (2001) Osnovi gidroekologiyi: Pidruchnik. (Principles of hydroecology. Textbook) Kyiv, LOGOS. 728 pp. (In Ukrainian). 119. Romanenko V. D., Afanasyev S. A., Petukhov V. B at al. (2003) Vliyanie rybnogo hozyaystva na biologicheskoe raznoobrazie v basseyne reki Dnepr. Opredelenie probelov i problem. (The impact of fisheries on biological diversity in the Dnieper river basin. Determination of issues and gaps.) Kyiv. 188 pp. (In Russian) 120. Romanenko V. D., Lyashenko A. V., Afanasyev S. A. et al. (2011) Comprehen sive characteristics of bottom sediments of water bodies of various types in the Kiliya Delta of the Danube River. Hydrobiol. J. 47(5): 3–20. 121. Rylov V. M. (1948) Cyclopoida presnyih vod. (Freshwater Cyclopoida) Moscow; Leningrad. 312 pp. (In Russian) 122. Sandu C., Farkas A., Musa-Iacob R. et al. (2008): Monitoring Pollution in River Mureş, Romania, Part I: The limitation of traditional methods and community

228

REFERENCES

response. Large Rivers, Archiv fur Hydrobiologie, 18(1–2): 91–106. 123. Sanzhak Yu. O., Liashenko A. V. (2009) Epifauna of the submerged wood in Kiliyan Danube delta. Prirodnichyi almanakh. Biologichni nauki 12: 185–193. (In Russian) 124. Sanzhak Yu. O., Liashenko A. V., Gontar V. I. (2012) First finding of Lophopo della carteri (Hyatt, 1866) Phylactolaemata in Kylian delta of Danube river. Russian J. Biol. Invasions 3: 29–33. 125. Sárkány-Kiss, A. 2003. Az erdélyi folyók vízi puhatestű faunájának egykori és jelenlegi helyzete. A minőségi és mennyiségi dinamikák ökológiai értelmezése, javaslatok. In: Ujvárosi, L. (szerk.): Erdély folyóinak természeti állapota. Sapientia Könyvek, Természettudomány, Kolozsvár, Románia; 107–150. (In Hungarian) 126. Schofield N. J., Davies P. E. (1996) Measuring the health of our rivers. Water (AWWA) 23: 39–43. 127. Shitikov V. K., Rozenberg G. S., Zinchenko T. D. (2003) Kolichestvennaya gidroekologiya: Metodyi sistemnoy identifikatsii. (Quantitative hydroecology. Methods of system identification) Tolyatti: 463 p. (In Russian). 128. Sommerhauser M., Robert S., Birk S. et al. (2003): UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project “Strengthening the implementation capacities for nutrient reduction and transboundary cooperation in the Danube River Basin”. Activity 1.1.2 “adapting and implementing common approaches and methodologies for stress and impact analysis with particular attention to hydromorphological conditions”; Activity 1.1.6 “developing the typology of surface waters and defining the relevant reference conditions”; Activity 1.1.7 “implementing ecological status assessment in line with requirements of EU Water Framework Directive using specific bioindicators”. FINAL REPORT. Vienna: http:// danubis.icpdr.org/undp-drp/ 129. Son M. (2007). Molliuski-vselentsy v presnykh i solonovatykh vodakh severnogo Prichernomorya. (Invasive Mollusks in fresh and brackish water bodies of north Black sea.) Odessa. 132 p. (In Russian). 130. Spandl H. (1926) Wissenschaftliche Forschungsergebnisse aus dem Gebiete der Unteren Donau und des Schwarzen Meets. 11. Süsswasser — Microfauna. Arch. Hydrobiol. 16: 528–604. (In German) 131. Tartari G., Mosello R. (1997) Metodologie analitiche e controlli di qualita nel laboratorio chimico dell’Istituto Italiano di Idrobiologia. Documenta dell’Istituto Italiano di Idrobiologia N 60. Verbania. 160 pp. (In Italian). 132. The Danube River Basin District. River basin characteristics, impact of human activities and economic analysis required under Article 5, Annex II and Annex III, and inventory of protected areas required under Article 6, Annex IV of the EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), 2004. 133. Training course on use of macrophytes for ecological status assessment (2011). Senec, Slovakia. 26–28 September, 2011.

229

REFERENCES

134. Tsarenko P. M. (1990) Kratkiy opredelitel khlorokokkovyh vodorosley Ukrainskoy SSR. (Short determinative key of Chlorococcaceae of the Ukrainian SSR.) Kiev, Naukova Dumka. 206 pp. (In Russian). 135. Tseeb Ya. Ya. (1947). (Materials on the study of the life of the Orel region water bodies and the development of fisheries) Uchenyie zapiski Orlovskogo gos. ped. instituta. Seriya yestestvoznaniya i khimii 2: 45–62 (In Russian). 136. Tudorancea C., Tudorancea M. M. (ed) (2006) Danube Delta. Genesis and biodiversity. Leiden, Backhuys Publ. 445 pp. 137. Tudorancea Cl., Ignat Gh., Diaconu I. (1976) Structura si diversitatea faunei bentonice in doua ecosisteme acvatice din Delta Dunarii. Ocrotirea Naturii Dobrogene Acad. R.S.R.: 90–112. 138. Whittaker R. (1980) Soobschestva i ekosistemy. (Communities and ecosystems) – Moscow: 326 p. (In Russian, transl. from English) 139. Unifitsirovannyie metody issledovaniya kachestva vod: chast 3. Metody biologicheskogo analiza vod. Prilozhenie 1. Indikatory saprobnosti. (Unified methods of water quality study: part 3. Method of biological analysis of water. Annex 1. Saprobity indicators). (1977) Leningrad, Gidrometeoizdat. 124 p. (In Russian) 140. Urho L. (1996) Identification of perch (Perca fluviatilis), pikeperch (Stizostedion lucioperca) and ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus) larvae. Annales Zoologici Fennici. – Helsinki 33: 659–667. 141. Utevsky S., Zagmajster M., Trontelj P. (2014) Hirudo medicinalis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2014: e.T10190A21415816. 142. Vădineanu A, Adamescu M., Vădineanu R. et al. (2003). Past and future management of lower Danube wetlands system: A bioeconomic appraisal. J. Interdisciplinary Economics 14: 415–447. 143. Vadineanu A. (2001) Lower Danube wetlands system (LDWS). Observatorio Medioambiental 4: 373–402. 144. Vadineanu A., Cristofor S. (1985) Consideratii asupra, circulatiei azotului si fosforului in ecosistemele acvatice ale Deltei Dunarii. Bul. De ecol, 2: 88–104. (In Romanian) 145. Vadineanu A., Cristofor S., Iordache V. (2001) Lover Danube system biodiversity changes. Pp. 26–63 in: Biodiversity in wetlands: Assessment, Function and Conservation. Leiden, Backhuys Publ. 146. Voskoboynikova O. S., Pavlov D. A. (2006) (Larval development of Perccottus glenii (Perciformes, Gobioidei, Odontobutidae) in view of the origin of Gobioidei). Voprosyi ikhtiologii 46(6): 826–841. (In Russian) 147. Westhoff V., Maarel E. (1973). The Braun-Blanquet approach. Pp. 619–726 in: Handbook of vegetation science. Pt. 5. The Hague. 148. White D. C., Davis W. M., Nickels J. S. et al. (1979) Determination of sedimen tary microbial biomass by extractible lipid phosphate. Oecologia 40: 51–62.

230

REFERENCES

149. Zernov S. A. (1908) Report on excursion trip to the north-western part of the Black Sea to study the fauna and collections for the Zoological Museum of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. Yezhegodnik Zool. muzeja Imper. Akademii nauk 13(1–2): 154–166. (In Russian) 150. Zhadin V. I. (1952) Molliuski presnykh i solonovatykh vod SSSR. (Molluscs of fresh and brackish waters of the USSR) Moscow; Leningrad. 346 pp. (In Russian) 151. Zimbalevskaya L. N. (1969) The distribution of invertebrates in the thickets of higher aquatic vegetation of the Danube Delta Kiliya. Pp. 337–345 in: Limnologicheskiye issledovanija Dunaya: Dokl. X1 Mezhdunar. konf. po limnolog. izucheniju Dunaja (Kiev, sentyabr’ 1967 g.) (Limnological investigations of the Danube River. Reports of XI Internat. conf. on limnological investigations of the Danube River, Kyiv, Sept. 1967).) Kiev. ( (In Russian) 152. Zimbalevskaya L. N. (1981) Fitofilnyie bespozvonochniye ravninnykh rek i vodokhranilishch. – (Phytophilus invertebrates of lowland rivers and reservoirs) Kyiv, Nak. Dumka. 202 pp. (in Russian) 153. Zorina-Sakharova Ye. Ye., Liashenko A. V., Voloshkevich Ye. V. (2009) Phytophilous fauna of water bodies of the Kiliya Delta of the Danube River: the main characteristics and the peculiarities of its development. Hydrobiol. J. 45(2): 35–42.

231

11.

10.

9.

8.

7.

6.

5.

4.

3.

2.

1.

№

+

+ + +

Bryophyta

Fontinalis sp. Spermatophyta submerged Rhizophytes Elodea canadensis Michx. HCY

Myriophyllum spicatum L. HAL

Najas marina L. NAJ

Potamogeton crispus L. POT

P. pectinatus L. POT

P. pusillus L. POT

P. perfoliatus L. POT

Vallisneria spiralis L. HCY

+

+

Chara sp.

Filamentous alga

Lopatna

Suez

Macroalgae

Taxon Sulimanca

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total

Small Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Macrophytes

Romania Bystryi

+

+

+

Vostochnyi

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut

Kiliya delta water courses water bodies

Part of delta

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut

Sulina delta water courses water bodies

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total

232

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Ukraine

Anex 1.Species list of hydrobionts Danube delta delta (2006-2007).

ANNEX

+ + + + +

Lemna minor L. LMN Spirodela polirhiza (L.) SCHLEIDEN LMN Hydrocharis morsus-ranae L. HCY

Salvinia natans L.SLI

Azolla caroliniana Wild. AZO

P. natans L. POT

Nuphar lutea (L.) Smith. NYM

Nymphaea alba L. NYM

Nymphaea candida J. et C.Pres.NYM Nyphoides peltata (S.G. Gmel.) O. Kuntze NYM Trapa natans L.s.l. TRA

Spermatophyta, Helophytes

Sagittaria sagittifolia L. ALI

16.

22.

24.

26.

25.

23.

21.

20.

19.

18.

17.

Lemna trisulca L. LMN

15.

+

Stratiotes aloides L.HCY

+

Spermatophyta, free floating and floating leafed plants Ceratophyllum demersum L. CTR

Taxon Lopatna

14.

13.

12.

№ Suez

+

+

Sulimanca

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi +

+

+

Vostochnyi

+

+

total +

+

+

+

Anankin Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total

Sulina delta water courses water bodies Ukraine +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

233

+ +

Butomus umbellatus L. BOT Glyceria maxima (C. Hartm.) Holmberg POA Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud. POA Schoenoplectus lacustris (L.) Palla POA Typha angustifolia L. TYP

Typha latifolia L. TYP

Sparganium erectum L. SPG

Dactylococcopsis elenkinii Roll

Dactylococcopsis linearis Geitl. Dactylococcopsis rhaphidioides Hansg. Synechococcus elongatus Näg.

37.

39.

40.

38.

36.

+

Dactylococcopsis acicularis Lemm.

Scirpus sylvaticus L.CYP

+

Alisma gramineum LEJEUNE ALI

Taxon Lopatna

Cyanoprokaryota

35.

34.

33.

32.

31.

30.

29.

28.

27.

№ Suez +

+

+

+

+

Sulimanca

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei

Small Merhei +

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+ +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Vostochnyi

+

+

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut


Bystryi

+

+

+

Phytoplankton

+

+

+

Romania

Part of delta

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut

234

+

+

+

+

+

total


Ukraine

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

56.

55.

54.

53.

52.

51.

50.

49.

48.

47.

46.

45.

44.

43.

42.

41.

№

+ + +

Synechocystis sp.

Synechocystis minuscula Woronich.

Merismopedia glauca (Ehr.) Näg.

Merismopedia minima G. Beck

Merismopedia punctata Meyen

Merismopedia elegans A. Br.

Merismopedia tenuissima Lemm. Pseudoholopedia convoluta (Bréb.) Elenk. Microcystis aeruginosa Kütz. emend Elenk. Microcystis pulverea (Wood) Forti emend. Elenk. Microcystis pulverea f.inserta (Lemm.) Elenk. Eucapsis minuta F.E. Fritsch Aphanothece stagnina (Spreng.) B.Peters. et Geitl. emend. Coelosphaerium kuetzingianum Näg.

Gomphosphaeria aponina Kütz.

+

+

+

Lopatna

Synechococcus major Schröt.

Taxon Suez +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Sulimanca

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi

+

+

+

+

Vostochnyi

+

total

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total

Sulina delta water courses water bodies Ukraine

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

235

+ + + + +

Anabaena spiroides Kleb. Aphanizomenon issatschenkoi (Ussatsch.) Pr.-Lavr. Aphanizomenon flos-aquae (L.) Ralfs

Oscillatoria chalybea (Mert.) Gom.

Oscillatoria planctonica Wolosz.

Oscillatoria lacustris (Kleb.) Geitl.

Oscillatoria limosa Ag.

Spirulina major Kütz.

66.

72.

71.

70.

69.

68.

67.

65. +

Anabaena scheremetievi Elenk.

63.

62.

+

+

+

64.

Gomphosphaeria lacustris Chod. Gomphosphaeria lacustris v. compacta (Lemm.) Elenk. Gloeocapsa magma (Breb.) Kütz. emend. Hollerb. Gloeocapsa turgida (Kütz.) Hollerb.

Taxon Lopatna

Marsoniella elegans Lemm. Rhabdoderma lineare Scmidle et Laut. emend. Hollerb Anabaena sp.

61.

60.

59.

58.

57.

№ Suez

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Sulimanca

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi

+

+

+

Vostochnyi

+

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut

236

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

89.

88.

87.

86.

85.

84.

83.

82.

81.

80.

79.

78.

77.

+ +

Phormidium sp.

Phormidium molle (Kütz.) Gom.

Phormidium mucicola Hub.-Pestalozzi

Cylindrospermum sp.

Dinophyta

Katodinium sp.

Glenodinium sp.

Glenodinium quadridens (Stein) Schiller + + +

Gymnodinium sp.

Peridinium aciculiferum Lemm.

Peridinium sp.

+

+

Glenodinium berolinense (Lemm.) Lind.

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romeria leopoliensis (Racib.) Koszhw.

+

+

+

Romeria elegans (Wolosch.) Koszhw.

76.

75.

Lopatna

Lyngbya limnetica Lemm.

Spirulina raphidioides Geitl.

Suez

Lyngbya circumcreta G.S. West

Spirulina minima Kütz.

73.

74.

Taxon

№ Sulimanca

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi

+

Vostochnyi

total

+

Anankin Kut

+

+

Potapiv Kut

Deliukiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

total


+

+

ANNEX

237

+ +

Trachelomonas armata (Ehr.) Stein Trachelomonas hispida (Perty) emend. Defl. Trachelomons intermedia Dang.

Trachelomonas lemmermanii Wolosz.

102. Trachelomonas volvocina Ehr. 103. Strombomonas acuminata (Schmarda) Defl.

+

+

Euglenophyta

Cryptomonas nasuta Pasch.

Cryptomonas anas Javorn.

+

+

+

+

Cryptomonas erosa Ehr.

Rhodomonas pusilla (Bachm.)

+

Cryptomonas sp.

Suez

Cryptomonas ovata Ehr.

Lopatna

Cryptophyta

Taxon

100. Trachelomonas planctonica Swir. 101. Trachelomonas rugulosa Stein

99.

98.

97.

96.

95.

94.

93.

92.

91.

90.

№ Sulimanca

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita +

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi

+

+

+

+

Vostochnyi

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut

238

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

+ +

+ +

+ + + + +

+ + + + + +

121. Phacus anaceolus Stokes

119. Lepocinclis steinii Lemm. 120. Phacus agilis Skuja

117. Lepocinclis globula Perty 118. Lepocinclis ovum (Ehr.) Lemm.

115. Euglena sp. 116. Lepocinclis fusiformis (Carter) Lemm.

113. Euglena vagans Defl. 114. Euglena viridis Ehr.

111. Euglena pasheri Swir. 112. Euglena spirogyra Ehr.

109. Euglena obtusa Schmitz 110. Euglena oxyuris Schmarda

+

107. Euglena granulata (Klebs) Schmitz 108. Euglena limnophila Lemm.

Lopatna

Suez

Taxon Sulimanca

104. Strombomonas urceolata (Stokes) Defl. + 105. Euglena acus Ehr. + 106. Euglena bucharica I. Kissel. +

№ total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi

+

+

Vostochnyi

total

+

+

Anankin Kut +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

239

Taxon

138. Phacus triquetrus (Ehr.) Duj.

136. Phacus setosus France 137. Phacus striatus France

134. Phacus polytrophos Pochm. 135. Phacus pyrum (Ehr.) Stein

132. Phacus parvulus Klebs 133. Phacus pleuronectes (Ehr.) Duj.

130. Phacus onyx Pochm. 131. Phacus orbicularis Hübner

128. Phacus monilatus Stokes 129. Phacus monilatus v. suecicus Lemm.

126. Phacus megapirenoides Roll 127. Phacus mirabilis Pochm.

124. Phacus longicauda v. tortus Lemm. 125. Phacus megalopsis Pochm.

122. Phacus curvicauda Swir. 123. Phacus longicauda (Ehr.) Duj.

№

+ + +

+ + + + +

Lopatna

Suez

Sulimanca +

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

Matita

+

+

+

+

Merhei

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi

+

Vostochnyi

total

+

Anankin Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut

240

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

Taxon

154. Pedinopera robusta Matv.

152. Pteromonas angulosa Lemm. 153. Pyramomonas sp.

150. Phacotus coccifer Korsch. 151. Phacotus pallidus Korsch.

148. Lobomonas ampla Pasch. 149. Lobomonas stellata Chod.

146. Chlamydomonas zebra Korsch. 147. Carteria radiosa Korsch.

144. Chlamydomonas mucosa (Korsch.) 145. Chlamydomonas reinhardtii Dang.

142. Chlamydomonas sp. 143. Chlamydomonas monadina Stein

Chlorophyta

141. Gyropaigne intermedia Asaul

139. Astasia curvata Klebs 140. Cryptoglena pigra Ehr.

№

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Sulimanca

Lopatna

Suez

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita +

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi

+

+

Vostochnyi

+

+

total

+

+

+

Anankin Kut

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


Ukraine

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

241

Taxon

165. Polyedriopsis spinulosa (Schmidle) Schmidle 166. Siderocelis ornata (Fott) Fott 167. Treubaria euryacantha (Schmidle) Korsch. 168. Treubaria planctonica (G.M. Smith) Korsch. 169. Treubaria setigera (Arch.) G.M. Smith 170. Treubaria triappendiculata Bern.

161. Golenkiniopsis longispina (Korsch.) Korsch. 162. Golenkiniopsis parvula (Woronich). Korsch 163. Ankyra judayi (G.M. Smith) Fott 164. Characium pluriococcum Korsch.

159. Eudorina elegans Ehr. 160. Golenkinia radiata Chod.

157. Pandorina charkoviensis Korsch. 158. Pandorina morum (Müll.) Bory

155. Volvulina steinii Playf. 156. Gonium pectorale Müll.

№

+ + +

+ + + + + + +

Lopatna

Suez

Sulimanca +

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei +

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi

+

+

Vostochnyi

total

+

+

Anankin Kut

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut


Part of delta

+

Deliukiv Kut

242

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

Taxon

187. Oocystis lacustris Chod.

185. Lagerhemia wratislawiensis Schröd. 186. Oocystis borgei Snow

183. Lagerhemia genevensis (chod.) Chod. 184. Lagerchemia marssonii Lemm.

181. Coenochloris pyrenoidosa Korsch. 182. Lagerheimia ciliata (Lagerh.) Chod.

179. Pediastrum tetras (Ehrenb.) Ralfs 180. Franceia tenuispina Korsch.

175. Pediastrum duplex Meyen 176. Pediastrum duplex v.gracillimum W. et. G.S. West 177. Pediastrum kawraiskyi Schmidle 178. Pediastrum simplex Meyen

173. Schroederia spiralis (Printz) Korsch. 174. Pediastrum boryanum (Türp.) Men.

171. Dicellula planctonica Swir. 172. Schroederia setigera (Schröd.) Lemm.

№

+ +

+

+

+

+ +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Lopatna

Suez

+

Sulimanca

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi

+

+

+

Vostochnyi

+

total

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut +

+

+

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


Ukraine +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

243

Taxon

194. Monoraphidium arcuatum (Korsch.) Hind. 195. Monoraphidium contortum (Thur.) Kom.-Legn. 196. Monoraphidium irregulare (G.M. Smith) Kom.-Legn. 197. Monoraphidium minutum (Näg.) Kom.Legn. 198. Monoraphidium tortile (W. et G.S. West) Kom.-Legn. 199. Closteriopsis acicularis (G.M. Smith) Belcher et Swale 200. Ankistrodesmus fusiformis Corda ex Korsch. 201. Closteriopsis longissima (Lemm.) Lemm.

192. Tetraedron minimum (A. Br.) Hansg. 193. Tetraedron triangulare Korsch.

190. Tetraedron caudatum (Corda) Hansg. 191. Tetraedron incus (Teil.) G.M. Smith

188. Oocystis submarina Lagerh. 189. Dimorphococcus lunatus A. Br.

№ Lopatna + + + + +

+ + + + + + +

Suez

Sulimanca

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi

+

+

+

+

+

Vostochnyi +

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut

244

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

Taxon

216. Selenastrum gracile Reinsch. 217. Dictyosphaerium anomalum Korsch.

214. Raphidocelis sigmoidea Hind. 215. Selenastrum bibraianum Reinsch.

212. Kirchneriella obesa (W.West) Schmidle 213. Quadrigula korschikoffii Kom.

209. Micractinium quadrisetum (Lemm.) G.M. Smith 210. Kirchneriella aperta Teil. 211. Kirchneriella lunaris (Kirchn.) Mob.

202. Monoraphidium griffithii (Berk.) Kom.Legn. 203. Closteriopsis acicularis (G.M. Smith) Belcher et Swale 204. Nephrochlamys allantoidea Korsch. 205. Nephrochlamys subsolitaria (G.S. West.) Korsch. 206. Micractinium bornhemiense (Corn.) Korsch. 207. Micractinium crassisetum Hortob. 208. Micractinium pusillum Fres.

№

+ + + + +

+ + + +

Lopatna

Suez

+

Sulimanca +

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei +

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei +

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi

+

+

+

Vostochnyi

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

245

Taxon

229. Crucigenia tetrapedia (Kirchn.) W. et G.S. West 230. Tetrachlorella alternans (G.M. Smith) Korsch. 231. Tetrastrum elegans Playf. 232. Tetrastrum heteracanthum (Nordst.) Chod. 233. Tetrastrum komarekii Hind.

224. Crucigeniella apiculata (Lemm.) Kom. 225. Crucigenia fenestrata (Schmidle) Schmidle 226. Crucigenia lauterbornei (Schmidle) Schmidle 227. Crucigenia guadrata Morr. 228. Crucigeniella rectangularis (Näg.) Kom.

222. Coelastrum microporum Näg. 223. Coelastrum sphaericum Näg.

220. Dictyosphaerium tetrachotomum Printz 221. Coelastrum astroideum De-Not

218. Dictyosphaerium pulchellum Wood. 219. Dictyosphaerium subsolitaria von Goor

№ Lopatna + + + +

+ + +

+

+

+ +

+

+

Suez

+

Sulimanca

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei +

+

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi

+

Vostochnyi

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut


Part of delta

+

Deliukiv Kut

246

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

Taxon

237. Actinastrum hantzschii Lagerh. 238. Didymogenes anomala (G.M. Smith) Hind. 239. Tetradesmus wisconsinense G.M. Smith 240. Scenedesmus acuminatus (Lag.) Chod. 241. Scenedesmus acuminatus v. tortuosus Skuja 242. Scenedesmus acuminatus v. elongatus G.M. Smith 243. Scenedesmus acutus Meyen 244. Scenedesmus arcuatus (Lemm.) Lemm. 245. Scenedesmus bicaudatus Deduss. 246. Scenedesmus caudato-aculeolatum Chod. 247. Scenedesmus denticulatus Lagerh. 248. Scenedesmus disciformis (Chod.) Fott et Kom.

234. Tetrastrum staurogeniaeforme (Schröd.) Lemm. 235. Tetrastrum triangulare (Chod.) Kom. 236. Actinastrum fluviatile (Schröd.) Fott

№

+ + + + + + + +

+ + + + +

Lopatna +

Suez

+

Sulimanca

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi

+

+

+

Vostochnyi

+

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

247

Taxon

+ + +

+ + + + + + + + +

+ 253. Scenedesmus intermedius v.bicaudatus Hortob. 254. Scenedesmus lefevrii Defl. 255. Scenedesmus obliquus (Turp.) Kütz. + 256. Scenedesmus obtusus Meyen + + + + +

263. Didymocystis inermis (Fott) Fott 264. Didymocystis planctonica Korsch.

259. Scenedesmus quadricauda (Turp.) Breb. 260. Scenedesmus spicatus W. et G.S. West 261. Scenedesmus spinosus Chod. 262. Didymocystis inconspicua Korsch.

257. Scenedesmus opoliensis P. Richt 258. Scenedesmus polyglobulus Hortob.

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Lopatna

Suez +

+

Sulimanca

+

249. Scenedesmus falcatus Chod. 250. Scenedesmus granulatus W. et G.S. West 251. Scenedesmus hystrix Lagerh. 252. Scenedesmus intermedius Chod.

№ total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei +

+

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi +

+

+

+

+

+

Vostochnyi +

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut

248 +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

Taxon

281. Desmidium aptogonum v. acutius Nordst.

277. Cosmarium sp. 278. Cosmoastrum polytrichum (Perty) Pal.Mordv. 279. Xanthidium sp. 280. Desmidium aptogonum Bréb.

275. Cosmarium ovale Ralfs 276. Cosmarium reniforme (Ralfs) Arch.

273. Closterium venus Kütz. 274. Cosmarium orbiculatum Ralfs

271. Closterium peracerosum Gay 272. Closterium setaceum Ehr.

269. Closterium exiguum W. et G.S. West 270. Closterium gracile Bréb.

267. Closterium acerosum (Schrank) Ehr. 268. Closterium acutum (Lyngb.) Bréb.

265. Granulocystis verrucosa (Roll) Hind. 266. Closterium aciculare (Tuff.) West

№ Lopatna + + +

+

Suez

+

Sulimanca

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

Matita

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei +

+

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi

+

Vostochnyi

+

total

+

+

Anankin Kut

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

249

Taxon

+ + +

+ + + +

289. Staurastrum sp.

Chrysophyta 290. Stenokalyx densata Schmid 291. Stenokalyx incostans Schmid

296. Kephyrion ovum Pasch. 297. Ochromonas sp.

294. Kephyrion cupuliforme Conr. 295. Kephyrion rubri-claustri Conr.

292. Stenokalyx monilifera Schmid 293. Stenocalyx parvula Schmid

287. Staurastrum sebaldii Reinsch. 288. Sraurastrum tetracerum Ralfs

284. Staurastrum cingulum (W. et G.S. West.) G.M. Smith 285. Staurastrum inconspicuum Nordst. 286. Staurastrum paradoxum Meyen

+

Lopatna

Suez

282. Staurodesmus cuspidatus (Bréb.) Teil. 283. Staurastrum boreale W. et G.S. West

№ Sulimanca +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei +

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi

+

Vostochnyi

total

+

Anankin Kut +

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

Deliukiv Kut

250 +

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

Taxon

311. Pseudokephirion rutthneri (Schill.) Schmid. 312. Pseudokephyrion schilleri Conr. 313. Pseudokephyrion undulatum (Klebs) Pasch.

307. Pseudokephirion cinctum (Schill.) Schmid 308. Pseudokephyrion ovum (Pasch. et Ruttn. 309. Pseudokephyrion pilidium Schill. 310. Pseudokephirion poculum Conr.

304. Dinobryon korschikofii f. glabra (Korsch.) Matv. 305. Dinobryon sertularia Ehr. 306. Dinobryon spirale Iwan.

302. Dinobryon divergens Imhof 303. Dinobryon korschikofii Matv.

300. Dinobryon acuminatum Ruttn. 301. Dinobryon bavaricum Imhof

298. Ochromonas nana Dofl. 299. Synochromonas gracilis Korsch.

№

+

+ + + + + + +

+

+

+

+

+

Lopatna

Suez

Sulimanca

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita

+

+

+

+

Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei +

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi

Vostochnyi

+

total

+

Anankin Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


Ukraine

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

251

Taxon Lopatna

329. Ophiocytium arbuscula (A.Br.) Rabenh.

327. Centritractus belenophorus Lemm. 328. Centritractus globulosus Pasch.

325. Goniochloris mutica (A. Br.) Fott 326. Centritractus africanus Fritsch et Rich

323. Goniochloris spinosa Pasch. 324. Goniochloris tripus Pasch. +

+ +

+

+

+

+

+

+

Xanthophyta 319. Pseudostaurastrum enorme (Ralfs) Chod. 320. Pseudostaurastrum hastatum (Reinsch) Chod. 321. Goniochloris fallax Fott 322. Goniochloris laevis Pasch.

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Suez

Sulimanca

318. Mallomonas tonsurata Teil.

316. Mallomonas acaroides Perty 317. Mallomonas curta (Playf.) Conr.

314. Pseudokephyrion sp. 315. Mallomonas sp.

№ total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi

Vostochnyi

total

Anankin Kut

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

Deliukiv Kut

252

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

Taxon

344. Cyclotella bodanica Eulenst. 345. Cyclotella kuentzingiana Thw.

341. Melosira granulata v. angustissima (O. Müll.) Hust. 342. Melosira italica (Ehr.) Kütz. 343. Cyclotella sp.

339. Melosira distans (Ehr.) Kütz. 340. Melosira granulata (Ehr.) Ralfs

337. Melosira ambigua (Grun.) O. Müll. 338. Melosira binderana Kütz.

Bacillariophyta

336. Tetraedriella spinigera Skuja

334. Tetraedriella acuta Pasch. 335. Tetraedriella impressa Pasch.

332. Tetraplektron acutum (Pasch.) Fott 333. Tetraplektron tribulus (Pasch.) Fott

330. Ophiocytium parvulum A. Br. 331. Pseudopolyedriopsis sp.

№

+

+

+ +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Lopatna

Suez

Sulimanca

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi +

+

+

+

+

Vostochnyi

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

253

+ + + +

+ + + +

359. Fragilaria construens (Ehr.) Grun. 360. Fragilaria construens v. binodis (Ehr.) Grun. 361. Fragilaria inflata (Heid.) Hust. 362. Fragilaria pinnata Ehr.

357. Diatoma vulgare Bory 358. Fragilaria capucina Desm.

355. Attheya zachariasii Brun 356. Diatoma elongatum (Lyngb.) Ag.

351. Stephanodiscus hantzschii Grun. 352. Stephanodiscus subtilis (Van Goor) A. Cl. 353. Coscinodiscus lacustris Grun. 354. Rhizosolenia eriensis H. L. Sm.

349. Stephanodiscus astraea (Ehr.) Grun. 350. Stephanodiscus dubius (Fricke) Hust.

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Lopatna

Suez +

Taxon Sulimanca

346. Cyclotella melosiroides (Kirchn.) Lemm. 347. Cyclotella meneghiniana Kütz. + 348. Cyclotella quadrijuncta (Schröter) Hust. +

№ total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei +

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Vostochnyi

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut

254

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

Taxon

379. Neidium iridis (Ehr.) Cl.

377. Cocconeis placentula Ehr. 378. Achnanthes minutissima Kütz.

375. Asterionella formosa Hass. 376. Cocconeis pediculus Ehr.

373. Synedra ulna (Nitzsch) Ehr. 374. Synedra vauscheriae Kütz.

371. Synedra tabulata (Ag.) Kütz. 372. Synedra tenera W. Sm.

369. Synedra montana Krasske 370. Synedra pulchella (Ralfs) Kütz.

367. Synedra capitata Ehr. 368. Synedra minuscula Grun.

363. Fragilaria virescens Ralfs 364. Fragilaria virescens v. mesolepta Schönf. 365. Synedra actinastroides Lemm. 366. Synedra acus Kütz.

№

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Lopatna

Suez +

+

Sulimanca

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Vostochnyi

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

255

Taxon

396. Navicula rhynchocephala Kütz. 397. Navicula roteana (Rabenh.) Grun.

393. Navicula pupula Kütz. 394. Navicula pupula v. rostrata Hust. 395. Navicula radiosa Kütz.

391. Navicula mutica Kütz. 392. Navicula placentula (Ehr.) Grun.

389. Navicula laterostrata Hust. 390. Navicula menisculus Schum.

387. Navicula hungarica Grun. 388. Navicula hungarica v capitata (Ehr.) Cl.

385. Navicula gracilis Ehr. 386. Navicula gregaria Donk.

382. Navicula cryptocephala v. veneta (Kütz.) Grun. 383. Navicula dicephala (Ehr.) W. Sm. 384. Navicula exigua (Greg.) O. Müll.

380. Navicula atomus (Näg.) Grun. 381. Navicula cryptocephala Kütz.

№

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Lopatna +

Suez

+

Sulimanca

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi

+

+

Vostochnyi

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut

256 +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

Taxon

413. Gyrosigma spenceri (W. Sm.) Cl. 414. Stauroneis anceps Ehr.

410. Gyrosigma acuminatum (Kütz.) Rabenh. 411. Gyrosigma attenuatum (Kütz.) Rabenh. 412. Gyrosigma distortum (W.Sm.) Cl.

408. Caloneis bacillum (Grun.) Cl. 409. Caloneis permagna (Bail.) Cl.

406. Pinnularia subsolaris (Grun.)Cl. 407. Caloneis amphisbaena (Bory) Cl.

404. Pinnularia interrupta W. Sm. 405. Pinnularia rangoonensis Grun.

402. Navicula vulpina Kütz. 403. Pinnularia gibba Ehr.

400. Navicula tuscula (Ehr.) Grun. 401. Navicula viridula Kütz.

398. Navicula salinarum Grun. 399. Navicula semen Ehr.

№

+

+ + +

+

+

Lopatna

Suez

Sulimanca

total +

+

+

+

+

Matita

+

+

+

+

Merhei

+

Small Merhei

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi

+

Vostochnyi

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

Anankin Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

257

Taxon

431. Gomphonema constrictum v. capitatum (Ehr.) Cl.

427. Gomphonema acuminatum Ehr. 428. Gomphonema acuminatum v. coronatum (Ehr.) W. Sm. 429. Gomphonema augur Ehr. 430. Gophonema constrictum Ehr.

425. Cymbella ventricosa Kütz. 426. Cymbella sp.

423. Cymbella lanceolata (Ehr.) V.H. 424. Cymbella pusilla Grun.

421. Cymbella ehrenbergii Kütz. 422. Cymbella lata Grun.

419. Amphora veneta Kütz. 420. Cymbella cistula (Hemp.) Grun.

417. Amphora ovalis Kütz. 418. Amphora perpusilla Grun.

415. Stauroneis anceps v.gracilis (Ehr.) Cl. 416. Amphora coffeaeformis Ag.

№ Lopatna + + + + +

+ + + + + + + +

+ +

+

+

Suez

Sulimanca

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita +

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi

+

+

+

+

+

Vostochnyi

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut

258

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

Taxon

445. Epitheima zebra (Ehr.) Kütz. 446. Epithemia zebra v. parcellus (Kütz.) Grun. 447. Rhopalodia gibba (Ehr.) O. Müll.

443. Epithemia sorex Kütz. 444. Epithemia turgida (Ehr.) Kütz.

441. Eunotia lunaris (Ehr.) Grun. 442. Epithemia ocellata Kütz.

439. Eunotia gracilis (Ehr.) Rabenh. 440. Epithemia intermedia Fricke

437. Rhoicosphaenia abbreviata (Ag.) L.-B. 438. Amphiprora paludosa W. Sm.

432. Gomphonema longiceps Ehr. 433. Gomphonema longiceps v. subclavatum Grun. 434. Gomphonema tergestinum (Grun.) Fricke 435. Gomphonema olivaceum (Lyngb.) Kütz. 436. Gomphonema parvulum (Kütz.) Grun.

№

+ + +

+ + + + + + +

Lopatna

Suez

+

Sulimanca +

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita +

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei +

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei +

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi

+

+

+

+

Vostochnyi

+

total

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut +

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

259

Taxon

464. Nitzschia longissima v. reversa W. Sm.

462. Nitzschia linearis W. Sm. 463. Nitzschia longissima (Breb.) Ralfs

460. Nitzschia hantzschiana Rabenh. 461. Nitzschia kuetzingiana Hilse

458. Nitzschia gracilis Hantzsch 459. Nitzschia fonticola Grun.

456. Nitzschia dissipata (Kütz.) Grun. 457. Nitzschia dubia W. Sm.

454. Nitzschia closterium (Ehr.) W. Sm. 455. Nitzschia communis Rabenh.

452. Nitzschia amphibia Grun. 453. Nitzschia angustata (W. Sm.) Grun.

450. Nitzschia acicularis W.Sm. 451. Nitzschia acuminata (W. Sm.) Grun.

448. Rhopalodia musculus (Kütz.) O. Müll. 449. Bacillaria paradoxa Gmelin

№ Lopatna + + + +

+ + + +

+

Suez

+

Sulimanca

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita

+

+

+

Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi +

+

+

+

+

Vostochnyi

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut

260 +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

Taxon

481. Surirella linearis W. Sm. 482. Surirella ovata Kütz.

479. Surirella elegans Ehr. 480. Surirella delicatissima Lewis

477. Cymatopleura solea v. gracilis Grun. 478. Surirela biseriata Breb.

475. Cymatopleura elliptica (Breb.) Cl. 476. Cymatopleura solea (Breb.)W. Sm.

473. Nitzschia vermicularis (Kütz.) Grun. 474. Nitzcshia vitrea Norman

471. Nitzschia subtilis (Kütz.) Grun. 472. Nitzschia tryblionella Hantzsch

469. Natzschia sigmoidea (Ehr.) W. Sm. 470. Nitzschia stagnorum Rabenh.

467. Nitzschia recta Hantzsch 468. Nitszhia scalaris (Ehr.) W. Sm.

465. Nitzschia palea (Kütz.) W. Sm. 466. Nitzschia paleaceae Grun.

№

+

+ + + +

+

+

+

Lopatna +

Suez

+

Sulimanca

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita +

+

+

+`

+

+

+

Merhei

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi +

+

+

+

+

+

+

Vostochnyi +

+

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

261

Taxon

497. Gastropus stylifer Imhof.

493. T. (s. str.) cylindrica (Imhof) 494. T. (s. str.) capucina (Wierz. et Zacharias) 495. T. (s. str.) longiseta (Schrank) 496. Trichocerca sp.

491. T. (s. str.) elongata (Gosse) 492. T. (s. str.) rattus (Müller)

489. T. (D.) similis (Wierzejski) 490. T. (s. str.) bicristata Gosse

487. Trichocerca (D.) tigris Müller 488. T. (D.) intermedia Stenroos

ROTATORIA 485. Notommata sp. 486. Cephalodella sp.

483. Surirella robusta Ehr. 484. Surirella robusta v.splendida (Ehr.) V.H.

№

+

+ + + + + + + + + +

+ + + + + + +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Sulimanca

Lopatna

Suez

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Zooplankton

Romania Bystryi

+

+

Vostochnyi

+

total

+

+

+

Anankin Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut

262 +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

Taxon

514. L. (s. str.) ungulata (Gosse) 515. L. (s. str.) stokesii (Pell)

512. Lecane (s. str.) luna (Müller) 513. L. (s. str.) flexilis (Gosse)

510. A. hyalinus Harr. 511. A. pelagica Gosse

508. А. sieboldi (Leydig) 509. Asplanchnopus multiceps (Schr.)

506. Asplanchna herricki Guerne 507. A. priodonta Gosse

504. Polyarthra sp. 505. Bipalpus hudsoni (Imhof.)

502. P. minor Voigt 503. P. remata Skorikov

500. Polyarthra vulgaris Carlin 501. P. dolychoptera Idelson

498. Ascomorpha agilis Zacharias 499. Synchaeta sp.

№

+ + + + +

+ + + + + +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Lopatna

Suez

+

Sulimanca

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania

Bystryi

+

+

+

+

+

Vostochnyi

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


Ukraine

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

263

Taxon

531. M. trigona (Gosse) 532. M. ventralis (Ehrenberg)

529. T. pocillum (Müller) 530. Mytilina mucronata (Müller)

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Sulimanca

+

Lopatna

Suez

526. Epiphanes pelagica Jennings + 527. Epiphanes macroura (Barrois et Daday) 528. Epiphanes clavulata Ehrenberg

524. L. (M.) bulla (Gosse) 525. Lecane sp.

522. L. (M.) crenata (Harr) 523. L. (M.) lunaris (Ehrenberg)

520. L. (M.) psammophila Wiszniewski 521. L. (M.) quadridentata (Ehrenberg)

518. L. (M.) arcuata (Bryce) 519. L. (M.) decipiens (Murray)

516. L. (s. str.) ludwigii (Eckst) 517. L. (M.) pyriformis Daday

№ total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi +

Vostochnyi

+

total +

+

Anankin Kut +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut

264 +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

Taxon

549. B. diversicornis (Daday)

547. B. budapestinensis Daday 548. В. веnnini Leissling

545. B. leydigi rotundus Rousselet 546. B. falcatus Zacharias

543. Brachionus quadridentatus Hempel 544. B. leydigii Cohn

541. E. pyriformis Gosse 542. E. triquetra Ehrenberg

539. E. dilatata Ehrenberg 540. E. deflexa Gosse

537. Lepadella sp. 538. Euchlanis incisa Carlin

535. L. ovalis (Müller) 536. L. patella (Müller)

533. C. colurus (Müller) 534. Lepadella quadridentata (Stenroos)

№

+

+ +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Lopatna

Suez

+

Sulimanca +

+

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi +

+

+

+

+

Vostochnyi +

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

265

Taxon

566. P. sulcata Hudson

564. Testudinella patina (Hermann) 565. Pompholyx complanata Gosse

562. Anuraeopsis fissa (Gosse) 563. Conochilus unicornis Rousselet

560. K. quadrata Müller 561. Notholca acuminata (Ehrenberg)

558. K. ticinensis Callerio 559. K. paludosa Lucks

556. Keratella cruciformis Thompson 557. K. cochlearis (Gosse)

554. Platyias quadricornis(Ehrenberg) 555. P. patulus (Müller)

552. B. c. amphiceros Pallas 553. B. angularis Gosse

550. B. forficula Wierz. 551. B. calyciflorus Pallas

№

+ + + + + + + + + + + + +

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Lopatna +

Suez

+

Sulimanca +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi

+

+

+

+

Vostochnyi

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut

266

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

Taxon

582. M. macrocopa (Straus)

580. S. serrulatus (Koch) 581. Moina micrura Hellich

578. D. cucullata Sars 579. Simocephalus vetulus (O.F. Müller)

+

+

+ +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Sulimanca

CLADOCERA 574. Sida crystallina (O.F. Müller) 575. Diaphanosoma brachyurum (Lievin)

576. Daphnia longispina O.F. Müller 577. D. pulex Leydig

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Lopatna +

Suez

573. Illoricata indet.

571. Rotaria rotatoria Pallas 572. Bdelloidea gen. sp.

569. F. longiseta limnetica (Zacharias) 570. Filinia sp.

567. Filinia longiseta (Ehrenberg) 568. F. terminalis (Plate)

№

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Vostochnyi

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

267

+ + + + +

+ + + + + +

598. Alonopsis elongata Sars 599. Chydorus sphaericus (O.F. Müller)

596. Leydigia leydigii (Leydig) 597. L. acanthocercoides (Fischer)

594. Monospilus dispar (O.F. Müller) 595. Graptoleberis testudinaria (Fischer)

592. Acroperus harpae (Baird) 593. Peracantha truncata Sars

590. Eurycercus lamellatus (O.F. Müller) 591. E. glasialis Lilljrborg

586. Scapholeberis mucronata (O.F. Müller) 587. Macrothrix hirsuticornis Norman et Brody 588. Ilyocryptus sordidus (Lievin) 589. I. agilis Kurz

+

+

+

+

Lopatna +

Suez +

Taxon Sulimanca

583. Ceriodaphnia quadrangula (O.F. Müller) 584. C. affinis Lilljeborg 585. C. pulchella Sars +

№ total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita +

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi +

+

Vostochnyi +

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut

268 +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

Taxon

616. Polyphemus pediculus (Linné)

614. Bosmina longirostris O.F. Müller 615. B. coregoni Baird

612. A. exigua (Lilljeborg) 613. Oxyurella tenuicaudis (Sars)

610. A. rectangula Sars 611. Alonella nana (Baird)

608. A. costata Sars 609. A. guttata Sars

606. Alona affinis (Leydig) 607. A. quadrangularis (O.F. Müller)

604. P. trigonellus O.F. Müller 605. P. striatus Schoedler

602. Pleuroxus aduncus (Jurine) 603. P. uncinatus (Baird)

600. Ch. globosus Baird 601. Disparalona rostrata (Koch)

№ Lopatna

+

+ + + + +

+ + + +

+

+

+

+

+

Sulimanca

+

+

+

Suez

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi

+

+

+

+

+

+

Vostochnyi +

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

269

Taxon

631. Diacyclops bicuspidatus (Claus) 632. Microcyclops varicans Sars

629. Acanthocyclops vernalis (Fischer) 630. A. viridis (Jurine)

627. Cyclops strenuus Fischer 628. C. vicinus Uljanin

625. E. macrurus (Sars) 626. Paracyclops fimbriatus (Fischer)

623. Eucyclops serrulatus (Fischer) 624. E. macruroides (Lilljeborg)

621. Macrocyclops fuscus (Jurine) 622. M. albidus (Jurine)

619. Nauplii Copepoda 620. Cyclopoida juv.

COPEPODA

617. Leptodora kindtii (Focke) 618. Cladocera juv.

№

+ + + + + +

+ + + + + + + +

+

+

Lopatna +

Suez

+

Sulimanca

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Vostochnyi

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut

270 +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

Taxon

Oligochaeta

+ +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Lopatna

Suez

Nematoda 645. Nematoda sp.

643. Spongilla lacustris Linnaeus 644. Hydrozoa

Porifera

642. Veliger Dreissena

Mollusca

641. Harpacticoida gen. sp.

639. Eudiaptomus gracilis Sars 640. E. graciloides (Lilljeborg)

637. Calanoida juv. 638. Eurytemora velox (Lilljeborg)

635. Thermocyclops oithonoides (Sars) 636. T. crassus (Fischer)

633. M. bicolor Sars 634. Mesocyclops leuckarti (Claus)

№ Sulimanca

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Macrofauna

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania

Bystryi

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Vostochnyi

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

271

Taxon

662. Peloscolex velutinus (Grube)

660. Nais simplex Piguet 661. Brachiobdella sp.

658. Nais barbata O.F.Muller 659. Nais pseudoptusa Piguet

656. Nais communis Piguet 657. Nais elenguis O.F.Muller

654. Pristina longiseta Ehrenberg 655. Nais sp.

652. Pristina equiseta Bourne 653. Pristina bilobata (Bretscher)

650. Dero obtusa d’Udekem 651. Ophidonais serpentina (O.F.Muller)

648. Chaetogaster diastrophus (Gruith.) 649. Dero digitata (O.F.Muller)

646. Stylaria lacustris (Linnaeus) 647. Chaetogaster diaphanus (Gruith.)

№

+

+ + + + +

+ + + + + + +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Lopatna +

Suez +

+

Sulimanca

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Vostochnyi

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut

272

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

Taxon

675. Tubifex tubifex (O. F. Muller) 676. Potamothrix hammoniensis (Michaelsen) 677. Potamothrix moldaviensis Vejdovsky et Mrazek 678. Psammoryctides albicola (Michaelsen)

673. Isochaetides michaelseni (Lastockin) 674. Isochaetides newaensis (Michaelsen)

671. Limnodrilus helveticus Piguet 672. Lumbriculus variegatus Grube

669. Limnodrilus claparedeanus (Ratzel) 670. Limnodrilus udekemianus (Claparede)

665. Psammoryctides albicola (Michaelsen) 666. Potamothrix hammoniensis (Michaelsen) 667. Limnodrilus sp. 668. Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri (Claparede)

663. Branchiura sowerbyi Beddard 664. Psammoryctides barbatus (Grube)

№

+ + + + +

+ + +

Lopatna

Suez

+

Sulimanca

+

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Vostochnyi

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

273

Taxon

693. Glossiphonia complanata (Linne) 694. Glossiphonia heteroclita (L.)

691. Piscicola geometra (L.) 692. Protoclepsis tessulata (O.F.Muller)

689. Hirudo medicinalis (Linne) 690. Piscicola fasciata (Linne)

687. Helobdella stagnalis (L.) 688. Hemiclepsis marginata (O.F.Muller)

Hirudinea 685. Erpobdella octoculata (Linne) 686. Batracobdella paludosa (Carena)

683. Hypaniola kowalewskii (Grimm) 684. Hypania invalida (Grube)

Polychaeta

681. Eiseniella tetraedra (Savigni) 682. Enchytraeidea sp.

679. Rhynchelmis sp. 680. Rhynchelmis limnosella Hoffmeister

№

+ + + + + +

+ + + + + +

+

+

Lopatna

Suez

Sulimanca

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita +

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi

+

+

+

Vostochnyi +

+

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut

274 +

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

Taxon

705. Gmelina costata Sars 706. Chaetogammarus warpachowskyi (Sars.) 707. Stenogammarus macrurus (Sars) 708. Stenogammarus carausui (Derzhavin et Pjat.) 709. Stenogammarus similis (G.O. Sars)

702. Niphargus valachicus Dobreanu et Manolache 703. Gammaridae sp. 704. Gmelina pusilla Sars

700. Pontogammarus robustoides (Sars) 701. Pontogammarus obesus (G.O. Sars)

698. Pontogammarus maeoticus (Sowinsky) 699. Pontogammarus crassus (G.O. Sars)

Gammaridae 695. Dikerogammarus haemobaphes (Ehrenberg) 696. Dikerogammarus villosus Sowinsky 697. Chaetogammarus ischus (Stebbing)

№

+ + + +

+ +

+

+

+

Lopatna

Suez

Sulimanca

+

+

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei +

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Vostochnyi

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut

Potapiv Kut +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

275

Taxon

Odonata

+

+

+

+

+ +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Suez

Sulimanca

Lopatna

Insecta

Cumacea 719. Pseudocuma laevis (Sars) 720. Pseudocuma caercaroides (Sars)

717. Limnomysis benedeni Czerniavsky 718. Paramysis intermedia (Cherniavsky)

Mysidacea

715. Asellus aquaticus L. 716. Jaera sarsi (Valkanov)

Isopoda

714. Corophium curvispinum Sars

712. Corophium robustum Sars 713. Corophium volutator (Pallas)

Corophiida 710. Corophium chelicorne Sars 711. Corophium nobile (G.O. Sars)

№ total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita

+

+

+

+

Merhei

+

Small Merhei

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi

+

+

+

+

+

+

Vostochnyi

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut

276

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

Taxon

Ephemeroptera

735. Platycnemis pennipes Pallas 736. Sympetrum flaveolum (Linne)

733. Ischnura pumilo (Charpentier) 734. Ischnura elegans (van der Linden)

731. Lestes sp. 732. Lestes barbara (Fabricius)

729. Erythroma najas (Hansemann) 730. Gomphus flavipes (Charpentier)

725. Coenagrion puella L. 726. Coenagrion pulchellum (van der Linden) 727. Coenagrion vernale (Hagen) 728. Cordulia aeneaturfosa Forster

723. Agrion vigro (L.) 724. Crocothemis erythraea (Brulle)

721. Aeschna juncea (Linne) 722. Aeschna viridis (Linne)

№

+ + + +

+ + + + + +

Lopatna

Suez

Sulimanca

+

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi

+

+

+

+

Vostochnyi

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

277

Taxon

751. Agraylea multipunctata 752. Agrypnia pagetana Curtis

Trichoptera

749. Plea minutissima Leach 750. Vellia affinis Kolenati

747. Mesovelia furcata Mulsant et Rey 748. Nepa cinerea Linne

745. Gerris argentatus Schummel 746. Hebrus ruficeps Thomson

743. Sigara falleni (Fieber) 744. Corixidae sp.

741. Ilyocoris cimicoides (Linne) 742. Sigara sp.

Heteroptera

739. Caenis horaria (Linne) 740. Cloen dipterum (Linne)

737. Arthroplea congener Bengston 738. Caenis robusta (Eaton)

№ Lopatna

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Suez

Sulimanca

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei +

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Vostochnyi

+

+

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut

278

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

Taxon

+

767. Chrysomelidae sp.

Lepidoptera 766. Lepidoptera sp.

Coleoptera

+

+

+

+

+

+

Lopatna

Suez

765. Tricholeiochitom fagesii (Guinard)

763. Hydropsyche ornatula (Mc lachlan) 764. Triaenoides bicolor (Curtis)

761. Orthotrichia tetensii Kolbe 762. Ecnomus tenellus (Rambur)

759. Polycentropus flavomaculatus Pictet 760. Oecetis furva (Rambur)

757. Leptocerus tineiformes Curtis 758. Limnephilus coenosus Curtis

755. Neureclipsis bimaculata (Linne) 756. Mystacides longicornis (Linne)

753. Cheumatopsyche lepida Wallengren 754. Neureclipsis bicolor L.

№ Sulimanca

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi

+

+

+

+

Vostochnyi

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut

+

Potapiv Kut +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

279

Taxon

+

+ + +

780. Driopidae sp.

Diptera

Limoniidae 781. Limoniidae sp.

Chironomidae

778. Peltodytes caesus Hbst. 779. Acilius sp.

776. Hydrobia tarta (Herbst.) 777. Hydrochus sp.

774. Helodidae sp. 775. Helophorus aquaticus Fabricius

772. Gyrinus sp. 773. Haliplus ruficollis (De Geer)

+

770. Donacia sp. 771. Dytiscus sp.

Lopatna

Suez

768. Сurculionidae sp. 769. Cybister sp.

№ Sulimanca

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

Matita

+

+

Merhei

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi

+

Vostochnyi

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut

280

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

Taxon

797. Cricotopus algarum (Kiffer) 798. Dikrotendipes nervosus (Staeger)

795. Cryptochironomus conjungens Kieffer 796. Cricotopus silvestris (F.)

793. Cryptochironomus viridulus (Fabricius) 794. Cryptochironomus defectus (Kiffer)

791. Corynonevra scutellata Winnertz 792. Cricotopus cylindraceus Kieffer

789. Parachironomus pararostatus (Lenz) 790. Cladotanytarsus mancus Walker

786. Camptochironomus pallidivitatus (Maloch) 787. Chironomus plumosus (L.) 788. Chironomus sp.

784. Anatopynia plumipes (Fries) 785. Brillia flavifrons Johansen

782. Ablabesmia monilis (Linne) 783. Ablabesmia lentiginosa (Fries)

№

+ + + + +

+ +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Lopatna

Suez

+

Sulimanca +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi +

+

+

+

+

+

Vostochnyi +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

281

Taxon

816. Pentapedilum sordens (wan der Wulp)

814. Paratanytarsus austriacus (Kieffer) 815. Paratendipes albimanus Meigen

812. Leptochironomus tener (Kieffer) 813. Orthocladius clarki Soponis

810. Glyptotendipes gripekoveni (Kieffer) 811. Glyptotendipes barbipes (Staeger)

807. Endochironomus stackelbergi Goetghebuer 808. Eukiefferiella sp. 809. Glyptotendipes caulicola (Kieffer)

805. Endochironomus tendens (F.) 806. Endochironomus impar (Walker)

803. Einfeldia longipes (Staeger) 804. Endochironomus albipennis (Meigen)

801. Fleuria lacustris (Kiffer) 802. Einfeldia carbonaria Meigen

799. Limnochironomus tritomus (Kieffer) 800. Microtendipes chloris Meigen

№ Lopatna + + +

+ +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Suez

Sulimanca +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei +

+

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi

+

Vostochnyi

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut

282 +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

Taxon

+ +

+ + + +

827. Psectrocladius socolovae Zelentzov et Makarchenko 828. Psectrocladius sordidellus (Zetterstedt) + 829. Stictochironomus clossiforceps (Kieffer) + 830. Tanytarsus excavatus Edwards +

833. Psectrocladius dilatatus van der Wulp

831. Telopelopia okoboji Walley 832. Psectrocladius zetterstedti (Zetterstedt)

825. Psectrocladius ferratilies Linevitch 826. Psectrocladius simulans (Johansen)

823. Tanytarsus gr.gregarius Kieffer 824. Psectrocladius delatotis Zelentzov

821. Tanypus vilipennis (K.) 822. Tanypus punctipennis (Meigen)

+

+

819. Procladius ferrugineus (Kiffer) 820. Tanypus craatzi (Kieffer)

Lopatna

Suez +

+

Sulimanca

817. Propsilocerus orielicus (Thsher.) 818. Procladius choreus Meigen

№ total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi

+

Vostochnyi

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

283

Taxon Lopatna

841. Polypedilium scalaenum (Schrank)

Chaoboridae 842. Chaoborus sp.

846. Palpomia tibialis (Meigen) 847. Ceratopogonidae sp.

Ceratopogonidae 844. Bezzia xantocephala Goetghebuer 845. Culicoides sp.

Culicidae 843. Culex sp.

+ +

+

+

+

+

+

839. Polypedilum convictum (Walker) 840. Polypedilum nubifer (Skuse)

+

+

837. Polypedilum exectum (Keffer) 838. Polypedilum bicrenatum (Kieffer)

+

+

+

+

Suez

+

Sulimanca

+

834. Psectrocladius psilopterus (van der Wulp) 835. Paratanytarsus lauterborni (Kiffer) 836. Polypedilum nubeculosum Meigen

№ total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi

+

+

+

Vostochnyi

+

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut

284 +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

Taxon

Gastropoda 858. Acroloxus lacustris (L.)

Acariformes 857. Acarina sp.

855. Muscidae sp. 856. Aranea

Muscidae

854. Setacera aurata (Stenhamar)

Ephydridae 852. Ephydridae sp. 853. Hydrellia sp.

Syrphidae 851. Syrphidae sp.

849. Odontomya ornata (Meigen) 850. Stratiomyidae sp.

Stratiomyidae

Psychodidae 848. Psychodidae sp.

№

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Sulimanca

+

+

Lopatna

Suez

total +

+

+

+

+

Matita +

+

+

+

Merhei +

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei +

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi +

+

+

Vostochnyi +

+

+

total +

+

+

+

Anankin Kut +

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

285

Taxon

875. Lymnaea danubialis (Schranck)

873. Lymnaea lagotis (Schrank) 874. Lymnaea auricularia (L.)

871. Physa fontinalis (Linne) 872. Lithoglyphus naticoides C. Pfeiffer

869. Planorbarius (Coretus) corneus (Linne) 870. Planorbis planorbis (Linne)

867. Bithynia leachi (Steppard) 868. Planorbis carinatus (O. F. Muller)

865. Borysthenia naticina (Menke) 866. Fagotia acicularis (Ferussac)

863. Fagotia esperi (Ferussae) 864. Bithinia tentaculata (Linne)

861. Anisus vortex (Linne) 862. Armiger crista (Linne)

859. Anisus acronicus (Ferussac) 860. Anisus albus (O.F.Muller)

№

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Lopatna

Suez

Sulimanca

+

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei +

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei

+

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi

+

+

+

+

Vostochnyi

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potapiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut

286

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

Taxon

890. Anodonta sp. 891. Anodonta piscinalis (Nilsson)

888. Dreissena polymorpha (Pallas) 889. Dreissena bugensis Andr.

886. Corbicula fluminea (O. F. Muller) 887. Musculum sp.

Bivalvia

884. Valvata pulhella Studer 885. Viviparus viviparus (Linne)

882. Valvata cristata (O.F.Muller) 883. Valvata piscinalis (O. F. Muller)

878. Lymnaea stagnalis (Linne) 879. Segmentina montagozoniana Bourguignat 880. Theodoxus fluviatilis (Linne) 881. Valvata sp.

876. Lymnaea palustris (O.F.Muller) 877. Lymnaea ovata (Draparnaud)

№

+

+ + + + +

+

Lopatna

Suez

Sulimanca +

+

+

+

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

Matita

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Merhei

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Small Merhei

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Romania Bystryi

+

+

+

+

+

+

Vostochnyi

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Anankin Kut

Potapiv Kut +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Deliukiv Kut


Part of delta

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

ANNEX

287

895. Plumatella fungosa Pallas

+

+ +

Sulimanca

+

total +

+

+

+

Matita +

+

+

Merhei

+

+

Small Merhei

total +

+

+

+

+

+

+

Bystryi

Vostochnyi

total

Anankin Kut

Potapiv Kut


Ukraine

377 338 345 561 457 469 343 625 745 224 248 333 337 324 295 536 603

+

Briozoa 893. Polydicella articulata Ehrenberg 894. Plumatella emarginata Allman

Suez

+

Taxon Lopatna

892. Unio pictorum (Linne)

№

Romania

Part of delta

Deliukiv Kut

288 total


ANNEX

7 Bystryi

6 Vilkove

5 Kiliya

4 Izmail

3 Cheatal

2 Reni

+

+

8 Tulcea

+ + +

+

+

+ +

+

+

+ +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+ + +

+

+

+

+

+

+ +

+

+

9 Mila 23

+

10 Sulina

+

11 Uzlina +

12 St. Gheorge

+

13 Erenciuc lake

+ + + +

14 Uzlina lake

+

15 Isak lake

Ecotype

COASTAL AQUATIC PLANTS and HYGROHELOPHYTES Salix alba L. + + + S. cinerea L. S. triandra L. + Populus alba L. + P. tremula L. + Amorpha fruticosa L. + + Rhamnus catharticus L. Alopecurus aequalis Sobol. he + + Bidens cernua L. he B. tripartitа L. he + Calystegia sepium (R.)Br Cyperus fuscus L. he + C. glomeratus L. he + + Echinochloa crusgali (L.) Beauv. he + Epilobium palustre L. he Erigeron canadensis L + Gnaphalium uliginosum L. he + Humulus lupulus L. Juncus bufonius L. he + Lycopus europaeus L he Lythrum salicaria L. he Petasites spurious (Retz.) Reichenb. he Plantago major L. Polygonum aviculare L. P. hydropiper L. + Rorippa amphibian (L.) Bess. he +

Species/stations

16 Culibul cu lebede lake

Annex 2 Structural characteristics of the aquatic macrophytes and semi-aquatic plants

ANNEX

289

290 Ecotype

1

3

ap

2

3 2

1 1

1 2

3

3

2

4

fl

2 1

3

3

ACRO PLEUSTOPHYTES Azolla filiculoides Lam.

3

3

+ +

P. natans L.

3

+

2

Reni

1

he

3 Cheatal

1 2

2

3

3

3

5 3 2 3

2 222

3 555

+

1

4

5

4 Izmail

2

5 Kiliya

2

6 Vilkove

2 3

7 Bystryi

1

8 Tulcea

+

9 Mila 23

+

10 Sulina

4

1 3 3

3

1

5 5 5 5

+

11 Uzlina

+

12 St. Gheorge

+

13 Erenciuc lake +

14 Uzlina lake

+

15 Isak lake

Glyceria maxima (Hartm.) Holmb. he Butomus umbellatus L. he Sparganium erectum L. he Sagittaria sagittifolia L. he ROOTED PLANTS WITH FLOATING LEAVES Nymphaea alba L. fl Nuphar lutea (L.)Smith fl Trapa natans s.l. L. fl Trapa natans. subsp. muzzanensis fl (Jäggi) Schinz Potamogeton nodosus Poir. fl

Typha angustifolia L.

Rumex hydrolapatum Huds. he Scutellaria galericulata L. Solanum dulcamara L. he Tripolium vulgare Nees he Tussilago farfara L. Urtica dioica L. Xanthium strumarium L. he HELOPHYTES Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex he Steud.

Species/stations


2

ANNEX

Ecotype sa sa

sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa

sa sa sa sa

ap ap ap ap

1

0

2

7

1

1

8

3 3

3

5

2 2

5

1

1

2

1

13

1 1

1

4

1

1

2 1

1

1

1

1

2 1

2

13

9

2

1

1 2

2

1

3

1 1 3

1

15

Reni

2

3 Cheatal

2

4 Izmail

1

5 Kiliya

1

6 Vilkove 2

7 Bystryi

1 1

8 Tulcea

1 2

1

41

12

1 333 1 1 1 2 2

1

14

2

1 1 3

1 1

1

7

1 1 1

2

7

4

3 2 3 5 5

1

1

9 Mila 23

1

10 Sulina

1 1 1

11 Uzlina 1 535 121

12 St. Gheorge 1

13 Erenciuc lake

1

14 Uzlina lake

1 1 5 1

15 Isak lake

Note: ‘+’ for hygrohelophytes and semi-aquatic species indicates to their presence at the station; 1–5 – significance for hydrophytes and helophytes by [Training course…, 2011]; two (three) columns of numbers at one station correspond to the species significance at the left and right banks in the branches or at the ecological heterogeneous areas of shallow-water in the lakes.

Hydrocharis morsus-ranae L. Lemna minor L. Salvinia natans (L.) All. Spirodela polyrhiza (L.) Schleid. SUBMERSED PLEUSTOPHYTES Ceratophyllum demersum L. C. submersum L. Lemna trisulca L. Stratiotes aloides L. SUBMERSED ANCHORED Elodea nuttallii (Planch.) H. St. John Myriophyllum spicatum L. M. verticillatum L. Najas marina L. Potamogeton crispus L. P. pectinatus L. P. perfoliatus L. Vallisneria spiralis L. MACROALGAE Chara sp. Cladophora sp. Total species hygrophytes and helophytes

Species/stations


2

ANNEX

291

6

Vilkove

5

Kiliya

4

Izmail

3

Cheatal

Reni

+

+

7

Bystryi

+

+

+

Mila 23

+

Sampling sites 8 9 10

Sulina

+

11

Uzlina

+

+

+

+

12 St. Gheorge

+

+ +

+ + +

+

+ + + +

+

+ +

+

+

+ + +

13 Erenciuc lake

+ +

14 Uzlina lake +

15

Isak lake

Tulcea

292

Cyanoprokaryota Merismopedia minima G. Beck Merismopedia punctata Meyen Microcystis aeruginosa Kütz. emend. Elenk. Marsoniella elegans Lemm. Oscillatoria planctonica Wolosz. Oscillatoria limnetica Lemm. Oscillatoria limosa Ag. Cryptophyta Cryptomonas sp. Eugenophyta Trachelomonas volvocina Ehr. Euglena granulata (Klebs) Schmitz Euglena limnophila Lemm. Euglena obtusa Schmitz Euglena sp. Phacus mirabilis Pochman Cryptoglena pigra Ehr. Chlorophyta Chlamydomonas sp. Phacotus coccifer Korsch. Pediastrum duplex Meyen Pediastrum boryanum (Thurp.) Menegh. Pediastrum simplex Meyen

Species/Varieties


2

Anex 3 The list of the species of phytomicrobenthos (at JDDS stations). ANNEX

Pediastrum tetras (Ehr.) Ralfs Schroederia spiralis (Printz.) Korsch. Franceia tenuispina Korsch. Monoraphidium arcuatum (Korsch.) Hind. Monoraphidium contortum (Thur.) Kom.-Legn. Oocystis submarina Lagerh. Tetraedron caudatum (Corda) Hansg. Tetraedron incus (Teil.) G.M. Smith Ankistrodesmus fusiformis Corda Coelastrum sphaericum Näg. Crucigeniella rectangularis (Näg.) Kom. Tetrastrum elegans Playf. Scenedesmus denticulatus Lagerh. Scenedesmus intermedius Chod. Scenedesmus quadricauda (Turp.) Breb. sensu Chod. Scenedesmus disciformis (Chod.) Fott et Kom. Scenedesmus acuminatus (Lagerh.) Chod. Scenedesmus opoliensis P. Richt. Scenedesmus obliquus (Turp.) Kütz. Scenedesmus falcatus Chod. Selenastrum gracile Reinsch Didymocystis planctonica Korsch. Tetraedron triangulare Korsch. Closterium sp.

Species/Varieties Mila 23

7

Bystryi

6

Vilkove

5

Kiliya

4

Izmail

3

Cheatal

Reni

Tulcea +

+

+

+

+


Sulina

+

11

Uzlina +

12 St. Gheorge + +

+

+

+

13 Erenciuc lake +

+

+

+

+ +

+ +

+ +

+ + +

+ +

+

+ + +

+

+ + + +

+

+

+

14 Uzlina lake + +

15

Isak lake

+


2

ANNEX

293

+ + + + + +

+ + + +

+

+

+ + + +

+ +

+

+

+ + + + + +

+

+

+

+ +

+

+ + +

+ + +

+ +

+ + +

+

+ + +

+

+

+ +

+ +

+ + +

+

+ + +

+

+ +

+ +

Reni

+

3

Cheatal

+ +

4

Izmail

+

5

Kiliya

+

6

Vilkove +

7

Bystryi

+ +

Mila 23

+


Sulina

+ +

11

Uzlina

+ +

12 St. Gheorge

+ + +

+

+ + +

+

+

13 Erenciuc lake

+ + +

+

+

+

+ +

+ +

+

+

+ + +

+

+

+

+

+

14 Uzlina lake + + +

15

Isak lake

Tulcea

294

Cosmarium sp. Staurastrum tetracerum Ralfs ex Ralfs Staurastrum cingulum (W. et G.S. West) G. Sm. Chrysophyta Mallomonas tonsurata Teiling Xanthophyta Tetraedriella acuta Pasch. Bacillariophyta Aulacoseira granulata (Ehr.) Sim. Aulacoseira granulata v. angustissima (O. Müll) Sim. Cyclotella glomerata Bachmann Cyclotella sp. Cyclotella bodanica Grun. Stephanodiscus astraea (Ehr.) Grun. Stephanodiscus hantzschii Grun. Stephanodiscus subtilis (Goor) A. Cleve Diatoma vulgare Bory Fragilaria virescens Ralfs Synedra actinastroides Lemm. Synedra acus Kütz. Synedra tenera W. Sm. Synedra tabulata (Agardh.) Kütz. Synedra ulna (Nitzsch.) Ehr. Synedra capitata Ehr.

Species/Varieties


2

ANNEX

+ +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Tulcea + +

+

+

+

+ +

+

+

+

+

+ +

+

+ +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+ +

+

+ + +

+

+

+

Reni

+ +

+ + + + +

+ +

+

+ +

+

+

+

+ +

+ + +

+ +

+ + +

+ + +

+

+

3

Cheatal

+

4

Izmail

+

5

Kiliya

+

6

Vilkove

+ + +

7

Bystryi

+

Mila 23 +


Sulina

+

11

Uzlina

+

12 St. Gheorge

+

13 Erenciuc lake

+

14 Uzlina lake

+

15

Isak lake

Navicula binodis Ehr. Navicula capitata Ehr. + Navicula cryptocephala Kütz. Navicula cryptocephala v. veneta (Kütz.) Rabenh. Navicula dicephala Ehr. Navicula hungarica Grun. Navicula scutum Schumann Navicula placentula (Ehr.) Grun. Navicula semen Ehr. Navicula pupula Kütz. Navicula radiosa Kütz. Navicula pupula v. rostrata Hust. Navicula rhynchocephala Kütz. Navicula viridula (Kütz.) Ehr. + Pinnularia maior (Kütz.) Rabenh. Pinnularia viridis (Nitzsch) Ehr. Pinnularia subsolaris (Grun.) Cl. Neidium dubium (Ehr.) Cl. Neidium productum (W. Sm.) Cl. Caloneis silicula (Ehr.) Cl. Gyrosigma acuminatum (Kütz.) Rabenh. + Gyrosigma spenceri (Quek.) Grif. et Henf. Cocconeis pediculus Ehr. Cocconeis placentula Ehr. Achnanthes minutissima Kütz.

Species/Varieties


2

ANNEX

295

Epithemia zebra (Ehr.) Kütz. Epithemia sorex Kütz.

3

Cheatal

Reni

+ +

+

+

+

4

Izmail

+

5

Kiliya

+ + +

+

6

Vilkove

+

7

Bystryi

+ +

+

+

+

+

+

+ +

+

+ + + +

+ +

+

+

+ +

+

+

+

+ +

+ + +

+

+

+

+ + +

+

+ +

+ +

+ +

Mila 23

+ + + +


Sulina

+ + + + + + +

11

Uzlina

+

12 St. Gheorge +

13 Erenciuc lake

+ +

14 Uzlina lake

+

15

Isak lake

Tulcea

296

Amphora ovalis (Kütz.) Kütz. Amphora perpusilla Grun. Amphora veneta Kütz. Cymbella lanceolata (Ehr.) Kirch. Cymbella parva (W. Sm.) Cl. Cymbella tumidula (Breb.) V. H. Cymbella turgida (Ehr.) Hass. Cymbella ventricosa (Agard.) Agard. Cymbella lata Grun. in Cl. Gomphonema acuminatum Ehr. Gomphonema acuminatum v. coronatum (Ehr.) Rabenh. Gomphonema augur Ehr. Gomphonema angustatum (Kütz.) Rabenh. Gomphonema constrictum v. capitatum (Ehr.) Grun. Gomphonema longiceps Ehr. Gomphonema olivaceum (Horn.) Breb. Gomphonema parvulum (Kütz.) Kütz. Rhoicosphenia abbreviata (Ag.) L.-B. Eunotia paralella Ehr. Eunotia pectinalis v. ventralis (Ehr.) Hust.

Species/Varieties


2

ANNEX

Epithemia turgida (Ehr.) Kütz. Rhopalodia gibba (Ehr.) O. Müll. Rhopalodia gibba v. ventricosa (Kütz.) H. Peragallo et M. Peragallo Didymosphenia geminata (Lyngb.) M. Schm. Bacillaria paradoxa Gmel. Nitzschia acicularis (Kütz.) W. Sm. Nitzschia angustata Grun. Nitzschia dissipata (Kütz.) Grun. Nitzschia gracilis Hant. Nitzschia frustulum (Kütz.) Grun. in Cl. et Grun. Nitzschia linearis (Ag.) W. Sm. Nitzschia longissima (Breb.) Ralfs. Nitzschia longissima v. reversa W. Sm. Nitzschia recta Hant. in Rabenh. Nitzschia sigmoidea (Nitzsch) W. Sm. Nitzschia subtilis (Kütz.) Grun. in Cl. et Grun. Nitzschia tryblionella Hantzsch Nitzschia vermicularis (Kütz.) Hant. in Rabenh. Cymatopleura solea v. elegans Virieux Cymatopleura solea (Breb.) W. Sm. Cymatopleura solea v. gracilis Grun. Surirela biseriata Breb. in Breb. et God. Surirella ovata Kütz. Surirella tenera Greg.

Species/Varieties

+

+

+ +

+

+ +

+

+

+

Reni

+

+ +

3

Cheatal

Tulcea + +

+

+ +

+

+

4

Izmail

+

5

Kiliya

+ + +

6

Vilkove

+ + +

7

Bystryi

+

+

+ +

+ + +

+

+

+

+ +

+

+ + +

+ +

Mila 23

+


Sulina

+

11

Uzlina

+

12 St. Gheorge

+

+ +

+

+ +

+

+ + +

13 Erenciuc lake

+ +

14 Uzlina lake

+

15

Isak lake

+


2

ANNEX

297

298 1 Giurgiulesti

Number of station

Name of station

X X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X X

X X

X X

X

X X

X

X X

X

X X

X X

X X

X X X

X X

2

Reni X

3 Cheatal

X

4 Izmail

X X

5

Kiliya

X

6 Vilkove

X

7 Bystryi

X X

8 Tulcea

X

9 Mila 23

X

10 Sulina

X

11 Uzlina

X

12 St. Gheorge

X

X

13 Erenciuc lake

X

14 Uzlina lake

X

15 Isak lake

Nematoda 1. Nematoda sp. Oligochaeta 2. Aelosoma hemprichi Ehr. 3. Branchiura sowerbyi Beddard 4. Eiseniella tetraedra (Savigni) 5. Isochaetides michaelseni (Lastockin) 6. Isochaetides newaensis (Michaelsen) 7. Limnodrillus claparedeanus Ratzel 8. Limnodrilus helveticus Piguet 9. Limnodrillus hoffmeisteri Claparede 10. Limnodrilus sp. 11. Limnodrilus udekemianus (Claparede) 12. Nais barbata O.F.Muller 13. Nais communis Piguet 14. Nais elenguis O.F.Muller 15. Nais simplex Piguet 16. Nais sp. 17. Ophidonais serpentina (O.F.Muller) 18. Potamothrix hammoniensis (Michaelsen) 19. Potamothrix moldaviensis Vejdovsky et Mrazek


Annex IV The list of the species and structural characteristics of macrozoobenthos (at JDDS stations). ANNEX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

Name of station

X

1 Giurgiulesti

X X

2

Reni

X

3 Cheatal

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

4 Izmail

X

5

Kiliya

X

6 Vilkove

X

7 Bystryi

X

8 Tulcea X

9 Mila 23

X

10 Sulina

X

11 Uzlina

X

12 St. Gheorge

X

13 Erenciuc lake

X

14 Uzlina lake

X X

15 Isak lake

20. Stylaria lacustris (Linnaeus) 21. Uncinais uncinata (Oersted) 22. Tubifex tubifex (O. F. Muller) Hirudinea 23. Caspiobdella fadejewi (Epstein) 24. Erpobdella octocullata (Linne) 25. Glossiphonia complanata (Linne) 26. Pisciola geometra (Linne) Gastropoda 27. Esperiana acicularis Fer 28. Esperiana esperi (Ferussac) 29. Ferrissia clessiniana Tryon 30. Lithoglyphus naticoides C. Pfeiffer 31. Lymnaea auricularia (Linne) 32. Lymnaea stagnalis (Linne) 33. Physella acuta Drp. 34. Planorbis planorbis (Linne) 35. Theodoxus danubialis C.Pf. 36. Theodoxus fluviatilis (Linne) 37. Valvata cristata (O.F.Muller) 38. Viviparus contectus (Millet) 39. Viviparus viviparus (Linne) Bivalvia 40. Anodonta cygnea (L.)


Number of station

ANNEX

299

300

51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60.

50.

49.

41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48.

1 Giurgiulesti

Name of station

X

X

X

X X

X X

X

X

X

X X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X X

X

X

X

X X

X X

X X X

X

X

X

X

2

Reni

X

3 Cheatal X

4 Izmail

X

5

Kiliya X

6 Vilkove

X

X

7 Bystryi

X

8 Tulcea

X

9 Mila 23

X

10 Sulina

X X

11 Uzlina

X

12 St. Gheorge

X

13 Erenciuc lake

X

14 Uzlina lake

X

15 Isak lake

Anodonta piscinalis (Nilsson) Corbicula fluminea (O. F. Muller) Dreissena bugensis Andr. Dreissena polymorpha (Pallas) Pseudoanodonta anatina (Linne) Sinanodonta woodiana (Lea) Unio pictorum (Linne) Unio tumidus (Filipsson) Acarina Acarina sp. Izopoda Jaera sarsi Valkanov Gammaridae Chaetogammarus ischus (Stebbing) Chaetogammarus warpachowskyi (Sars) Dikerogammarus haemobaphes (Eichwald) Dikerogammarus villosus Sowinsky Echinogammarus trichiatus Martyn. Gammaridae sp. Niphargus sp. Stenogammarus sp. Pontogammarus crassus (Sars) Pontogammarus obesus (Sars) Corophiidae


Number of station

ANNEX

X

X

X

X

X X X X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X X

X X

X

X

X

X X

X X

X X

X X X

X X X

X

X X

X

X

X X

Name of station

X

1 Giurgiulesti

X

2

Reni

X

3 Cheatal

X

4 Izmail

X

5

Kiliya

X

6 Vilkove

X

7 Bystryi X

8 Tulcea

X

9 Mila 23

X

10 Sulina

X X X

11 Uzlina

X X

12 St. Gheorge

X X X

13 Erenciuc lake

X

14 Uzlina lake

X

15 Isak lake

61. Corophium curvispinum Sars 62. Corophium nobile Sars 63. Corophium robustum Sars Cumacea 64. Schizorhynchus scabriusculus (Sars.) 65. Schizorhynchus eudorelloides (Sars.) Myzidacea 66. Limnomysis benedeni Czerniavsky 67. Paramysis lacustris (Mart.) Decapoda 68. Palaemon elegans Rathke Odonata 69. Aeschna cyanea (O.F.Muller) 70. Coenagrion armatum (Charpentier) 71. Calopterix spendens (Harris) 72. Erythroma najas (Hansemann) 73. Ischnura elegans (van der Linden) 74. Ischnura pumilo (Charpentier) Ephemeroptera 75. Caenis horaria (Linne) 76. Caenis robusta Eth. 77. Cloen dipterum (Linne) Coleoptera 78. Сurculionidae sp.


Number of station

ANNEX

301

302 1 Giurgiulesti

Name of station

X

X

2

Reni

X

3 Cheatal X

4 Izmail

X X

5

Kiliya

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X X

X

X

X

X X

X

X X

X X X X X

X

X X X

X

X

X X

X

6 Vilkove

X

7 Bystryi

X X

8 Tulcea

X

9 Mila 23 X

10 Sulina

X

11 Uzlina

X

12 St. Gheorge X

13 Erenciuc lake

X

14 Uzlina lake

X

15 Isak lake

79. Dytiscus marginalis Linne 80. Haliplus ruficollis (De Geer) Heteroptera 81. Mesovelia furcata Mulsant et Rey 82. Micronecta griseola Kirkaldy 83. Nepa cinerea Linne. 84. Vellia affinis Kolenati Lepidoptera 85. Acentria ephemerella Trichoptera 86. Cheumatopsyche lepida Wallengren 87. Ecnomus tenellus (Rambur) 88. Leptocerus tineiformes Curtis 89. Orthotrichia tetensii Kolbe Ceratopogonidae 90. Dasyhelea sp. Chironomidae 91. Ablabesmya monilis (L.) 92. Anatopynia plumipes (Fries) 93. Chironomus sp. 94. Cladotanytarsus mancus (Walker) 95. Corynoneura scutellata Winnertz 96. Cricotopus sylvestris (F.) 97. Criptocladopelma viridula (Fabricius)


Number of station

ANNEX

Name of station

7 0,89 96 0,1 2,10

1 Giurgiulesti 11 2,09 16412 179,3 2,80

2

Reni 13 2,00 182 30,1 2,11

X

3 Cheatal 17 24 20 2,66 2,58 2,49 2562 3250 7294 52,1 242,0 57,1 2,19 2,75 2,79

12 1,00 200 21,1 2,04

X

4 Izmail

X X

5

Kiliya X X

6 Vilkove

X

X

X

X 13 32 26 31 30 23 1,90 3,50 2,81 1,61 2,26 – 2420 3146 2596 6710 2574 – 50,3 750,1143,2659,1212,1 – 2,17 2,64 2,28 2,22 2,23 2,12

X

X

X

X

X X

35 14 3,81 0,32 2860 1892 2,1 1,9 2,38 2,81

X X X

7 Bystryi

X

8 Tulcea

19 2,29 1408 6,2 2,16

X

X X

X

9 Mila 23 X

10 Sulina

X

11 Uzlina

X

12 St. Gheorge X

13 Erenciuc lake

X

14 Uzlina lake

X

15 Isak lake

98. Dikrotendipes nervosus (Staeger) 99. Endochironomus albipennis Meigen 100. Endochironomus stackelbergi Goetghebuer 101. Glyptotendipes gripekoveni (Kieffer) 102. Harnnischia burganadzeae (Tshernovskij) 103. Hydrobaenus lugubris (Fries) 104. Hydrobaenus pilipes (Malloch) 105. Leptochironomus tener (Kieffer) 106. Parakiefferiella gracillima 107. Pentapedilum sordens (van der Wulp) 108. Polypedilum bicrenatum Kieffer 109. Polypedilium convictum (Walker) 110. Polypedilum nubeculosum Meigen 111. Polypedilium scalaenum (Schrank) 112. Psectrocladius litofilus Akhrorov 113. Tanytarsus excavatus Edwards Bryozoa 114. Plumatella fungosa Pallas 115. Polydicella articulata Ehrenberg Total species richness Shannon, bit/ind Abundance, th.ind/m2 Biomass, g/m2 Zelinka-Marvan index


Number of station

ANNEX

303

304

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

1. 2. 3. 4.

№

Lymnaea stagnalis (Linne) Physa fontinalis (Linne) Physella acuta Draparnaud. Planorbarius corneus (Linne) Planorbis planorbis (Linne) Valvata piscinalis (O.F.Muller) Valvata pulchela Studer Viviparus contectus (Millet) Oligochaeta

Gastropoda Acroloxis lacustris (Linne) Gyraulus albus (O.F.Muller) Bithуnia tentaculata (Linne) Bithynia troschelii (Paasch) Lymnaea auricularia (Linne) Lymnaea ovata (Draparnaud)

Musculium lacustre (O. F. Müller) Unio pictorum (Linne)

Bivalvia Sinanodonta woodiana Lea. Pisidium milium Held

Species

+

+

+ + +

+ +

+ + + +

channels

+

+

+

+ + +

+ +

lakes

+

+

+

+ + +

+ + +

+ + + +

total

Small Tataru island

+ +

+ +

+ +

+ +

channels

+ + + +

+

+

+ +

+

lakes

+ +

+

+

drift

Ermakov island

+ + + + +

+

+ +

+ +

+ +

total

+

+ + +

+

+ +

Ochakivskyi island channel

Anex 5. List of macroinvertebrates species of water bodies and water courses of Danube delta islands (may, 2018).

ANNEX

Species

36. 37. 38. 39.

32. 33. 34. 35.

21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

Dero digitata (O.F.Muller) Dero dorsalis Ferroniere Limnodrilus claparedeanus Ratzel Limnodrilus sp. Nais barbata O.F.Muller Nais communis Piguet Nais elenguis O.F.Muller Nais pseudobtusa Piguet Nais simplex Piguet Ophidonais serpentina (O.F.Muller) Potamothrix haemmoniensis (Mich.) Psammorichtides albicola (Michaelsen) Sperosperma ferox (Eisen) Stylaria lacustris (Linnaeus) Tubifex tubifex (O. F. Muller) Hirudinea Erpobdella octocullata (Linne) Glossiphonia complanata (Linne) Glossiphonia heteroclita (Linne) Haementeria costata (Muller)

19. Branchiura sowerbyi Beddard 20. Chaetogaster diaphanus (Gruith.)

№

+ + +

+ +

+ +

+ + +

+ +

+ +

+

+

+ + + +

+

+

+ + + +

lakes

channels

+ + +

+ +

+

+ +

+ + + + + + +

+

total

Small Tataru island

+ +

+

+

+

+ + + +

+

channels

+ +

+ +

+ + +

+ +

+

+

+

lakes

+

+

+

drift

Ermakov island

+ +

+ + + +

+ + +

+ +

+ + + +

+

+

total

+

+

+


ANNEX

305

306

Species

56.

54. 55.

50. 51. 52. 53.

49.

47. 48.

Isopoda Asellus aquaticus (Linne) Jaera sarsi Valkonov Mysida Limnomysis benedeni Czerniavsky Odonata Anax imperator Coenagrion puella L. Ischnura elegans (van der Linden) Libellula vulgata Linnaeus Ephemeroptera Caenis horaria (Linne) Cloen dipterum (Linne) Coleoptera Acilius sulcatus (L.)

Haemopis sanguisuga (L.) Hirudo medicinalis Linnaeus Cystobranchus fasciatus Kollar. Piscicola geometra (Linne) Corophiidae 44. Corophium curvispinum Sars Gammaridae 45. Niphargus potamophilus Birstein 46. Gammaridae sp.

40. 41. 42. 43.

№

+ +

+ + + +

+

+ +

+

channels + + + +

+ +

+ +

+

lakes

+ +

+ + + +

+

+ +

+

total + + + +

Small Tataru island

+

+

+

channels

+

+

+

+

+

lakes

+

+

drift

Ermakov island

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

+ +


ANNEX

74. 75. 76.

73.

67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72.

57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66.

№

Hyphydrus ovatus (Linnaeus, 1761) Ilibius sp. Laccobius sp. Heteroptera Corixa linnaei (Fieber) Corixa punctata (Illiger) Ilyocoris cimicoides (Linne) Plea minutissima Leach Ranatra linearis Linne Sigara falleni (Fieber) Lepidoptera Lepidoptera sp. Trichoptera Agraylea multipunctata Curtis Ecnomus tenellus (Rambur) Leptocerus tineiformes Curtis

Cybister lateralimarginalis (Deg.) Driops sp. Enochrus sp. Gaurodites sp. Haliplus ruficollis (De Geer) Heterocerus sp. Hydrophilus piceus Linnaeus

Species

+ +

+ + +

+

+ +

+ +

channels

+ +

+

+ +

lakes

+ +

+

+ + + +

+

+ +

+ +

total

Small Tataru island

+

+ +

+

+

+

channels

+ + +

+

+

+

lakes

+

+

+

+

+ + +

drift

Ermakov island

+ + +

+

+ + +

+

+

+

+ + +

total

+

+ + +

+


ANNEX

307

308 +

Orthotrichia tetensii Kolbe

+ +

+ + + + + +

Hydrobaenus lugubris (Fries)

Hydrobaenus pilipes (Malloch)

Parachironomus pararostatus (Lenz) 96. Paratanytarsus lauterborni (Kiffer)

95.

94.

93.

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Endochironomus albipennis Meigen

+

+

+

+

+

Einfeldia longipes (Staeger)

+

+

Dikrotendipes nervosus (Staeger)

+

+

+

+

Cricotopus sylvestris (F.)

+

Criptochironomus obreptans Kieffer

+

Cricotopus algarum (Kieffer)

Glyptotendipes gripekoveni (Kieffer)

92.

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

lakes

+ +

+

+

+

channels

Corynoneura scutellata, Winnertz

+

+

+

+

+

total

+

+

+

drift

Ermakov island

Cladopelma lateralis (Goetghebuer) +

+

Chironomus sp.

Cladotanytarsus mancus (Walker)

+

Ablabesmya monilis (L.)

Tricholeiochitom fagesii (Guinard) Chironomidae

+

lakes

Small Tataru island channels

Oecetis lacusris (Pictet)

Species

Endochironomus tendens (F.)

91.

90.

89.

88.

87.

86.

85.

84.

83.

82.

81.

80.

79.

78.

77.

№

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

total

+


ANNEX

Ceratopogonidae Ceratopogonidae sp. Chaoboridae Chaoborus sp. Ephydridae Ephydridae sp. Psychodidae Psychodidae sp. In total

Species

108.

107.

106.

105.

98. 99. 100. 101.

Polypedilum convictum (Walker) Polypedilum exectum (Keffer) Polypedilum nubeculosum Meigen Polypedilum sordens (van der Wulp) Procladius choreus Meigen Psectrocladius sordidellus 102. (Zetterstedt) 103. Tanypus vilipennis (K.) 104. Tanytarsus excavatus Edwards

97.

№

+ 69

+

+

+ + + +

channels

45

+

+

+ 81

+

+

+ + +

+ +

+ + + + +

total

+

lakes

Small Tataru island

39

+

+

+ +

49

+

+ + +

21

70

+

+

+ + +

+

total

+ + +

drift + +

+

lakes

+ +

channels

Ermakov island

22

+


ANNEX

309

ANNEX

Contents. Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Передмова . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Prefață . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 CHAPTER 1. Materials and methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1. Area of investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2. Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3. Laboratory investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4. Data analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 17 18 25 26

CHAPTER 2. Assessing the impact of environmental change on aquatic ecosystems in the Danube Delta (ECAQUDAN). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 2.1. Hydrochemical investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 2.1.1. Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 2.1.2. Sediments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 2.2. Hydrobiological investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 2.2.1. Bacterioplankton – Bacteriobenthos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 2.2.2. Aquatic macrophytes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 2.2.3. Phytoplankton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 2.2.4. Zooplankton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 2.2.5. Phytophilous fauna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 2.2.6. Macrozoobenthos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 2.3. Comparative analysis of the Danube delta aquatic ecosystems status . . 108 2.3.1. Species composition, similarity and distinction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 2.3.2. Quantitative parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 2.3.3. Ecological characteristic of the Danube delta water bodies . . . . . 116 CHAPTER 3. Joint environmental monitoring, assessment and exchange of information for integrated management of the Danube Delta. . . . . . . . . 123 3.1. Aquatic macrophytes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 3.2. Phytobenthos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 3.3. Macrozoobenthos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

310

ANNEX

CHAPTER 4. Hydrobiological investigations of modern state of the Small Tataru and Ermakov islands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1. Macroinvertebrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2. Ichthyofauna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3. Modern state of hydrobiocoenoses of Small Tataru and Ermakov islands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

153 158 177 187

CHAPTER 5. Reference parameters of the Kiliya Danube delta water bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 CHAPTER 6. Proposal for a monitoring scheme of the Danube Delta . . . 197 Afterword. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 Annexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232

311

Наукове видання Artem Liashenko, Sergiy Afanasiev, Cristina Sandu, Kateryna Zorina-Sakharova, Oksana Manturova, Liudmyla Guleikova, Tetiana Diachenko, Olexandr Savitskyi, Vadim Makovskyi, Igor Abramiuk, Alina Dumitrache, Doina Ionica Hydrobiocenoses of the transboundary sections of the Ukrainian and Romanian parts of the Danube delta (англійською мовою) Монографія У дизайні обкладинки використані репродукція картини С. О. Афанасьєва та фото О. Л. Савицького Головний редактор Наталія Перинська Технічний редактор Анна Ільченко Підписано до друку: 18.12.2018. Формат 60х84/16. Гарнітура Minion Pro. Папір офсетний. Ум.-друк. арк. 18,14. Наклад 300 прим. Видавництво «КАФЕДРА» 04136, м. Київ, вул. Маршала Гречка 13, оф. 117 e-mail: [email protected] www.kafedra.in.ua тел.: (093) 521-31-21, (067) 442-98-78 Свідоцтво про внесення суб’єкта видавничої справи до Державного реєстру видавців, виготівників і розповсюджувачів видавничої продукції Серія ДК № 4175 від 20.10.2011 р. Друкарня «Гордон» 03179, м. Київ, вул. Котельникова, 95 Тел./факс(044) 501-35-69 Свідоцтво про державну реєстрацію ДК № 1422 від 08.07.2003